Why do you think I anticipate inflation? I think today is like 1929, which was not followed by an inflationary period.

The markets today have fallen further in total capitalization than they did in 1987. If you consider 1987 as a significant "liquidation event" then why wouldn't today's drop fall into the same category?

Your scheme seems to make 1987 into a bigger event than it was while trying to minimize the present. In 1987 the economy was not falling into recession as it was in 1929 (and is today). The market recovered to its old highs in two years. Do you think the NASDAQ will be back up to 5000 next March, or the S&P500 back to 1500 by next August?

1987 was a correction, like 1998, just on a way bigger scale. You could have bought mutual funds in August 1987 and five years later be doing fine. Those who bought mutual funds in March/August 2000 will underperform money markets for more than 20 years.

Check out my book for more detail:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595132421

Time to pretend to be Robert Reed. :smile:

According to this link, presidents of both left and right erode civil liberties through executive orders. The author is concerned that the present crisis may hasten this trend.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=24686

Brian Rush,

Get a grip buddy. I really think you are misinformed about who the RR are and what they want. You are reaching out to the absolute fringe of conservatism to judge the mainstream of religous conservatives. It's as if I were to read the documents of the Revolutionary Communist Party and characterise the outcome of a left-of-center democratic administration.

As a card carrying member of the RR -- Orthodox Roman Catholic variety I would have to say that Hopefull Cynic represents my opinion of most religious conservatives that I know. The only areas that you mentioned that I can see the RR being stronger on, that Hopefull didn't comment on, are pornography which I believe would be restricted to about the level it was in 1950s America (hardly a facist era), and the war on drugs which has hardly been abandoned by even the Clinton era liberals.

They would easily grant more freedom of choice on education so that parents could use the funds allocated for their children's education to have them educated in accordance with their beliefs. This would lead to a huge increase in philosophical liberty for families.

We on the religous right tend to be more educated to the beliefs and attitudes of the left because we've been educated in colleges and universities where the spectrum runs from center left to lunatic left. The most sriking thing to the intellectual religous is that secularists (or humanist as you might prefer--I don't care either way) don't understand how much their beliefs are within a tradition every bit as much as a religous tradition and can be every bit as doctrinaire. That the left tends towards a utopian vision of what is possible with human condition is indisputable. The imposition of this utopian vision has led to extreme forms of totalitarianism. Most of us know that this does mean that any left of center movement will produce totalitarian results.

I hope you can reach a position regarding us that is this open minded.

Vince Lamb is concerned about excessive executive powers? According to this link, presidents of both left and right erode civil liberties through executive orders. The author is concerned that the present crisis may hasten this trend.

On the other hand, one might argue that since Watergate, the president has been in a perpetual state of siege, with any miscue, any abuse of power, triggering a witch-hunt by the opposition party. Some would combine the post Watergate mentality with the 3T indecisive partisanship to say recent presidents are under excessive scrutiny, and have had their power checked to the point of being ineffective.

I could argue both sides. That dang President After Hoover couldn?t pass constitutional amendments fast enough to solve the Great Depression, so he filled the Supreme Court with justices willing to ignore the constitution. He got away with it, but we have been left without a written constitution since, with liberal and conservative justices making decisions more on the basis of maintaining FDR?s system of smoke and mirrors rather than implementing written rule of law.

I have daydreamed about a constitutional convention to bring things up to date. With the initial phases of the crisis looking outwards, it isn?t going to happen soon. Traditionally, the treaties, charters, constitutions and amendments are written at the tail of the crisis, on the cusp of the high, when the consensus has been achieved, problems solved, and it is time to carve the Answers into stone. Perhaps in solving the external crisis, Dubya or his heir will clearly abuse powers, thus putting rule of law on the agenda. Recent examples, however, suggest that when a popular Gray Champion sort abuses power in the public interest, the majority bow in worship, and only eccentric minorities stand on the White House lawn hissing.

Yes, we ought to keep an eye on excessive executive orders, but it is possible to err on the side of not enough power too. Have I dithered sufficiently on this one?

As to whether we are truly in a 4T or not, I was especially struck in re-reading the S & H book yesterday by their prediction that the national regeneracy that typically takes place during a 4T could take anywhere from one to five years to fully take hold.

It seems to me that we are already experiencing a great deal of regeneracy, even despite small pockets of opposition. So I think what some of the early posts said about seasons turning slowly is very apt. I think we'll still see glimpses of the 3T for quite some time to come, but clearly the people holding 3T views are being drowned out and in many cases punished. Just ask Bill Maher or the elementary teacher who burned a flag in his classroom.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Cusper '61 on 2001-09-27 13:42 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Cusper '61 on 2001-09-27 21:15 ]</font>

[quote]
On 2001-09-27 11:35, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
Why do you think I anticipate inflation? I think today is like 1929, which was not followed by an inflationary period.

The markets today have fallen further in total capitalization than they did in 1987. If you consider 1987 as a significant "liquidation event" then why wouldn't today's drop fall into the same category?

Your scheme seems to make 1987 into a bigger event than it was while trying to minimize the present. In 1987 the economy was not falling into recession as it was in 1929 (and is today). The market recovered to its old highs in two years. Do you think the NASDAQ will be back up to 5000 next March, or the S&P500 back to 1500 by next August?

1987 was a correction, like 1998, just on a way bigger scale. You could have bought mutual funds in August 1987 and five years later be doing fine. Those who bought mutual funds in March/August 2000 will underperform money markets for more than 20 years.


well mike, you are correct about the decline in the markets if you only look at nasdaq which i contend is a major error. there was certainly a bubble in tech stocks which was brought about primarily by an excess infusion of liquidity into the system by the fed due to concerns about the Y2K problem. that liquidity was removed from the system in 2000 when no problem emerged and that burst the tech/internet bubble. the subsequent fall in nasdaq is not unusual. however, if you take a look at broader markets they have had nothing like that kind of decline nor, i contend, will they.

to refer to 1987 as a "correction" tells me that you probably did not experience it first hand nor are you paying close attention to the types of events surrounding it. not all "panic" moves like we saw in 1987 produce subsequent depressions and 1987 was one of those circumstances. nor does the end of a "bubble" such as we saw in nasdaq always lead to a depression unless the right groundwork for such an event has already been laid, and it just has not happened.

i assign the significance to the 1987 crash that i do because subsequent events occurred just as they should have if 1987 is marked as the liquidation event...i.e. a monetary expansion, a popular war, a technology boom with a lull after 10 years. and the proof is in the results, wouldn't you agree?

as for what will happen next year, i think we will soon begin a slow move higher very soon that will accelerate in probably another year or two after that.

but to say the broad market has had a decline equivalent to a "crash" is just false at this time. it has not happened, nor do i think it is very likely now considering the massive influx of liquidity into the system that it is going to happen.

the fact is, i do think your claim that index funds will underperform cash over the next 20 years will probably turn out to be true. but i don't think it will be true for the next several years. but, as i said, how things play out in the next few months will likely tell us which model is accurate and which is not. but for what you are predicting to occur and play out in the way you describe would be an event without the normal prior events that trigger it and would be unprecedented. that's not to say it could not happen, but it seems to me the odds are not as great as you might think.

Vince, I did not realize that people here were working on a fixed 72-year saeculum (or 80-year as the case may be). I'd appreciate reading what you all have put together if you can direct me to the proper place in the old forums. Honestly, I am not inclined to believe that history is a progression of such quantifiably equal units of time as that might suggest that the periodicity of celestial bodies or, more broadly, astrology dictates the flow of events. However I suppose there are theorists out there proposing just that. Who knows? Anything is worth a look and there definitely are some interesting parallels.

For whatever it is worth, I tried to line up the 19th Century 3T with the two in this century. I am not sure that it tells us anything but I will let you have a look. My assumptions are as follows:

1) Mexican War = WWI = Gulf War, and thus Polk = Wilson = Bush

2) Pierce = Harding = Clinton given the general tone of crimes, plots, and/or scandals.

3) Buchanan = Hoover = Bush given that crisis developed or began developing during their terms.

These assumptions produce the following 3T parallels:


----------------- = 1904 Roosevelt- = 1980 Reagan

Transition to 3T: 1844 = 1908 = 1984

----------------- = 1908 Taft------ = 1984 Reagan
----------------- = 1912 Wilson-------------------
1844 Polk-------- = 1916 Wilson---- = 1988 Bush
1848 Taylor---------------------------------------
1852 Pierce------ = 1920 Harding--- = 1992 Clinton
----------------- = 1924 Coolidge-- = 1996 Clinton
1856 Buchanan---- = 1928 Hoover---- = 2000 Bush

Transition to 4T: 1860 = 1929 = 2001

1860 Lincoln----- = 1932 Roosevelt- = ?-----------


Le me know if you can put the pieces together.

On 2001-09-27 07:25, JustinLong wrote:

I think what you've hinted at is correct: we likely lost the 4 years with Bush's loss to Clinton.

Justin, if we assume that there is anything to these timespans, then the loss of four years occurred before the Gulf War was fought as the Gulf War falls the same distance from the catalyst as WWI before it. I linked Ronald Reagan's first term to Theodore Roosevelt's elected term for a variety reasons in the earlier post. If my argument is valid, then we lost four years between 1984 and 1990 in this 3T. I am not sure what could account for it. But then there may be nothing to these perfectly timed sequences in the first place.

Hey Neil - does what you just said (4:50pm CDT) to Bill Hemmer on CNN (nice job by the way, you looked positively human :smile:, and I was surprised by how much time he gave you) mean you think we are in a Fourth Turning now?

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Krein on 2001-09-27 16:35 ]</font>

Stonewall Patton wrote: "If my argument is valid, then we lost four years between 1984 and 1990 in this 3T. I am not sure what could account for it. But then there may be nothing to these perfectly timed sequences in the first place."

No, Mr. Patton, we are not working on a fixed saeculum here. Never have the authors claimed that either the saeculum or its turnings were "perfectly timed". As given in the book, Turnings can and have lasted anywhere from 16 to 28 years; saeculi between 72 and 107.

In short, Generational Theory is not an exact science, though some of us may occasionally sound as if it is.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2001-09-27 17:09 ]</font>

Mr. Krein asks, "Hey Neil - does what you just said (4:50pm CDT) to Bill Hemmer on CNN... mean you think we are in a Fourth Turning now?"

Too soon to tell, would be my bet on what his answer would be.

On 2001-09-27 17:05, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

No, Mr. Patton, we are not working on a fixed saeculum here. Never have the authors claimed that either the saeculum or its turnings were "perfectly timed". As given in the book, Turnings can and have lasted anywhere from 16 to 28 years; saeculi between 72 and 107.

In short, Generational Theory is not an exact science, though some of us may occasionally sound as if it is.

Kevin, I am aware of S&H's work and I subscribe to it. I was responding to Vince Lamb who said that he and others, not S&H, were investigating set 72-year and/or 80-year saecula (saeculi?) on the old forum. Did not mean to confuse the two efforts.

On 2001-09-27 12:35, SteveM_55 wrote:
Brian Rush,

Get a grip buddy. I really think you are misinformed about who the RR are and what they want. You are reaching out to the absolute fringe of conservatism to judge the mainstream of religous conservatives. It's as if I were to read the documents of the Revolutionary Communist Party and characterise the outcome of a left-of-center democratic administration.

As a card carrying member of the RR -- Orthodox Roman Catholic variety I would have to say that Hopefull Cynic represents my opinion of most religious conservatives that I know. The only areas that you mentioned that I can see the RR being stronger on, that Hopefull didn't comment on, are pornography which I believe would be restricted to about the level it was in 1950s America (hardly a facist era), and the war on drugs which has hardly been abandoned by even the Clinton era liberals.

They would easily grant more freedom of choice on education so that parents could use the funds allocated for their children's education to have them educated in accordance with their beliefs. This would lead to a huge increase in philosophical liberty for families.

We on the religous right tend to be more educated to the beliefs and attitudes of the left because we've been educated in colleges and universities where the spectrum runs from center left to lunatic left. The most sriking thing to the intellectual religous is that secularists (or humanist as you might prefer--I don't care either way) don't understand how much their beliefs are within a tradition every bit as much as a religous tradition and can be every bit as doctrinaire. That the left tends towards a utopian vision of what is possible with human condition is indisputable. The imposition of this utopian vision has led to extreme forms of totalitarianism. Most of us know that this does mean that any left of center movement will produce totalitarian results.

I hope you can reach a position regarding us that is this open minded.

Thank you! I was beginning to feel as if I was shouting in an echo chamber!

On 2001-09-27 00:57, Delsyn wrote:

I thought about that after I posted, but there's one problem: if you recall the story, the nature of Alia, Ghanima, and Leto the Younger (Paul's younger sister and children, for those who don't recall) means that the generational cycle would not apply to them. They would simultaneously be of all four generational types, and in fact could validly claim to be generations unto themselves.

Yes... and no. For those of you who are not familiar with the story, the special power of those 3 characters was that they contained inside themselves all the lifetimes of memories of all of their ancestors back to first humans to walk erect. So yes, between that and their vast influence over the universe they could plausibly claim to BE a generation. However, if you'll remember, the reason that Alia was considered an "Abomination" was because her original personality was practically destroyed by the conflicting memories within her and she was eventually possessed by one of the worst human beings in history - Baron Vladimir Harkonnen. Leto and Ghanima avoided that fate by coming to a truce with the billions of personalities that live inside them and keeping their original personalities dominant - those personalities were Nomad.

In a way those three characters represent a metaphorical warning about the power that different generations should and shouldn't have in different Turnings. In Alia, the generations became scrambled as personalities from different times struggled for supremacy. The one who eventually one won out was an utterly evil Hero. The lessons of Ghanima and Leto was about appreciating and understanding the wisdom and lessons of previous generations while also relying on yourself because you understand that what they did may not be applicable to today.

Hmm. I take your point about the pragmatism of Leto the Younger and Ghanima. Leto, especially, could be frighteningly pragmatic at times, even by Xer standards!

The Baron, a Hero? What is your basis for that assessment? Somehow he always struck me more as the very worst sort of Nomad/Reactive, the type that reacts by making himself the absolute center of the universe.

I thought of something else, too. Suppose the generational cycle went on throughout Leto's Peace, all those thousands of years. Every lifetime or so, a Prophet generation would come along.

I guess what I'm asking is what the reaction would be if a Prophet generation rose up for its Awakening, bounced, and knew that no matter how hard they tried, they could NEVER overcome the Establishment, that it would outlast them to the last member. I wonder what the generational reaction would be?

Brian, if your reading this, what would the result have been if LBJ had been perceived as being there permanently, probably beyond any hope of removal in your lifetimes?

Now, my take is that he was planning to wait until after he was re-elected to take on pulling out of Vietnam. Same on Civil Rights legislation. On each of these issues he faced a huge opposition entrenched in Washington. He was never safely "in" there. He took counsel from Gen. Douglas MacArthur on both Vietnam (which was, a war we couldn't win) and on the MIC - Military Industrial Complex (and it's eery that Ike warned against the MIC in his farewell address in a sort of surreal moment that nobody much paid attention to at the time). Then, firing Dulles -- well, IMO, that sealed his fate. I'm not sure at all that he would have gotten re-elected because of forces behind the scenes working against him. (And you asked about Bobby, my guess is he would have been MORE popular in JFK's death, but not his own. Bobby was the Second Chance at it, and when he died, it was *as if* all the dreams for change died, too.)

Barbara, what is your basis for thinking he would have pulled out of Vietnam? I've heard that many times, but I've never heard anyone give a convincing reason why.

But, back to JFK, in office, he didn't behave properly. He wasn't Ike. Ike would sit and listen, and then sign off on whatever his advisors decided and take off to play golf. Kennedy tried to make his own decisions and often clashed horns with the Pentagon, CIA, FBI. This scared the status quo, along with his magic of rallying Americans with his words and his personna. So, I now think something effective would have gotten started to derail him in 1964.

As a Reactive, I feel honor-bound to point out that Ike did do more than play golf. For example, in my opinion, Ike successfully balanced the demands of the military, which kept saying "The Soviets are coming, the Soviets are coming!" in order to encourage constant funding and procurement, and the idealistic dreamers who kept trying to say that the Soviets were the hope of mankind, and paradise would follow if America disarmed. After all, the Soviet Union was a dangerous dictatorship, led by a particularly dangerous sort of dictator.

We'd never seen a President assassinated in our collective lifetimes. Dallas was just, well, you just had to be alive and have any memory capacity back then to understand the retching shock, horror, sadness. Scratch that, yes, you DO now know. It was ALOT like 911 as far as reaction. You know, people were scared at first, as well. They did not know who had done it, let alone what it meant. The mourning period lasted a long time as those things go.

You know, I tend to see some parallels between the fixes Kennedy got himself into amidst the entrenched Washington bureacracy, and the fixes Clinton got himself into with same. If one buys into his assassination being an "inside job", I wonder if he would have ever wished for a press like today's who could have helped punish him and destroy him, thereby walking away alive at least. Heh. I suppose that's one thing Clinton should be grateful for.

That's one of the odd things about how Clinton looks from the different sides. From my perception, the press shielded him, which enabled him to get away with the things I strongly suspect he got away with.

I just don't know about the assassination being an inside job. A lot of very peculiar coincidences did go down that day. On the other hand, the risk factor in assassinating a president would be incredible for government officials.

Cheers for Hopefull Cynic and SteveM_55.

On 2001-09-27 07:23, Brian Rush wrote:
I could go on at considerably more length. Since I grew up around people of this persuasion and know the mind-set well, you are not going to be able to covince me that this is not what many of them would like to see happen, even though I believe you, personally, do not, and that you believe others share your relatively moderate and reasonable mindset to a greater extent than I think they do, particularly those of them that happen to be Boomers or Millennials instead of Xers.

But Jeers for you, Mr. Rush. Sounds like you've let anecdotal experience from a long time ago build up a warm and cuddly reservoir of prejudice in you. Am I supposed to be swayed into believing that the majority of the RR is made up of fascist fanatics, based solely on the fact that you "grew up around people of this persuasion"?

You're right - I'm never going to be able to convince you otherwise. Once someone with a closed mind is set in his ways, it's a waste of effort trying to discuss anything with him rationally. So I won't.

Now I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about the Northern Alliance (except that they have a pretty cool Star Wars type of name and they've GOT to be better than the Taliban). Certainly the old interview footage that they aired of their former leader reveals that they seems to have at least a slightly more liberal attitude toward women - but the point is, I don't know. Remember in the Gulf War when we were coming to the aid of a "democratic" Kuwait - where most of the population can't vote.

Here I have to reluctantly disagree: they don't _have_ to be better than the Taliban, though they may well be for all I know. Believe it or not, history records quite a few regimes considerably worse than the Taliban, something that gives me no pleasure to note.

On 2001-09-27 07:20, Brian Rush wrote:
HopefulCynic:

In version 1, JFK lives, either the bullet misses or he survives the impact, and goes on to a successful second term. Realizing that Vietnam was a doomed enterprise, JFK pulls out before the worst of the disaster sets in, and goes on to establish the Civil Rights movement and the integration of the South, which goes smoothly because of Kennedy's youth, charisma, and skill, and because the absence of the Vietnam War keeps the domestic scene quiet. Later, his legacy establishes the Democratic Party and liberalism as the dominant cultural and political forces, thus nullifying Reagan and the right-wing turn of the eighties.

Some of that might have come off, but much of it really is a fantasy. Although there was interaction and some mutual reinforcement between the war protests and the race violence, they were really independent for the most part. The inner-city riots occurred in the Awakening's first years, 1965 and 1966 for the most part, while the biggest antiwar protests occurred in '68-'72. I doubt if Kennedy could have headed off the former, though pulling out of Vietnam would have redirected the energy of the latter, probably into anti-Bomb activity, and probably cooled it off to some degree.

Yes, that's basically my point. I think that Arthur Schlesinger, Jackie Onassis (sp?), to some degree Walter Cronkite and his branch of the TV media, and a few others have built up this PR spin to the point that they've started to believe it themselves.

That last sentence is pure nonsense, of course. Liberalism was the dominant theme of the Awakening even in the Nixon years, so a Kennedy second term wouldn't have changed that, and Unravelings always feature a turn to the right.


Kennedy's own political success or failure, and how he was remembered, probably hinged on pulling us out of Vietnam. If he didn't, he'd have been the target of rage just like Johnson was, maybe more so because it would look so much like a betrayal. If he did, though, the Awakening would still have happened. There was plenty of other stuff going on.

A betrayal in what way? Did he actually ever promise or imply that he would do so?
(An honest question, I don't know the answer.)

I am not absolutely certain he would even have won reelection in 1964. It would have depended in much on who the GOP ran against him, and how clever each side was. It would certainly not have been a done deal.

Here I think I have to disagree. As for the GOP candidate, that was all but settled in favor of Goldwater by '63. Goldwater had serious liabilities. A thoroughly honorable man, and really too honest for politics, he tended to say things that made people think he was nuts. His campaign slogan was "In your heart, you know he's right," and the Democrats came out unofficially with three comebacks that I know of. One was "Yeah -- extreme right." Another was "In your guts you know he's nuts." And the third (and my favorite) was "In your heart, you know he might." (As in drop the Bomb.)


Kennedy's stock had gone way up because of his perceived leadership in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Barbara seems to think that his opponents within the government would have pulled strings to defeat him, and I'm sure there were those that would have liked to do that, but she has a higher opinion of their ability to pull it off than I do. Had that been possible, I don't think he would have been assassinated.

Am I to take it that you don't share the Lee Harvey as lone gunman theory?

If I'm right, JFK would have needed political cover to pull out safely. In that, he would find himself in the same boat as JFK and Nixon later. Further, let's not forget good old human pride. I don't think he would have liked being known as the president who failed in Vietnam any more than LBJ liked the idea.

There was no easy way to do it, but one possibility has occurred to me. Kennedy could have reenacted the old unification elections idea, which was supposed to go down in the late 50s but was rejected by Ngo Dinh Diem or whoever was in charge of SVN then. It could have been announced beforehand that any rejection of the democratic solution by SVN would mean that the U.S. could no longer support that country. Then either you get a peaceful reunification (under the Communists because that's how the vote would have gone), or America has an excuse to wash its hands of the whole mess.

Now that is interesting. It's a way out for Kennedy that I hadn't thought of. On the other hand, could he have kept the 'hawks' in the various governments and factions from finding a way to sabotage to election?

Suppose the horror had followed as it did in the real world. What do you think the American reaction afterward would have been?

If JFK had lived and won that second term, I have a hunch a six-to-eight year older JFK would have looked quite a bit to the Boomers like an embodiment of the G.I. Establishment.

Maybe. To some extent, certainly. The instinct of the older Hero is to try to harness the country's energy to do grand things and institute civic reforms of one kind or another. The instinct of the young Prophet is to reject harnessing, march to the beat of a different drummer (as one eloquent Transcendental put it), and reform the spirit. No matter who was in charge, those two instincts had to collide.


I do think, though, that a lot of the sheer rage we felt towards LBJ (I know I did, anyway) came from the fact that the SOB lied to us, and about something as crucial as our lives. He promised not to send American troops into Vietnam, won a landslide election, and was barely sworn in when we had half a million combat soldiers there. Old joke about the '64 election: "They said if I voted for Goldwater we'd be in a war, and by golly I did and we are."

To this day, there is a faction with the GOP that is angry about the demonization of Goldwater. That famous add with the little child in the flowers can still make some elder GOP voters blood boil. (I'm not crazy about it myself.)

I do think it made a difference, and made things much worse, that the leaders of the country during the years 1965-1974 were so personally odious, and so worthy of moral condemnation. People other than Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon might have been regarded differently.

What if you had a clearly honorable and trustworthy Hero president, who was _still_ determined to 'press on to victory' in Vietnam? That attitude seems to be almost hardwired into the G.I.s, after all.

Steve M. 55:

As a card carrying member of the RR -- Orthodox Roman Catholic variety I would have to say that Hopefull Cynic represents my opinion of most religious conservatives that I know. The only areas that you mentioned that I can see the RR being stronger on, that Hopefull didn't comment on, are pornography which I believe would be restricted to about the level it was in 1950s America (hardly a facist era), and the war on drugs which has hardly been abandoned by even the Clinton era liberals

First, if you are a Catholic you are not a member of the religious right as I am categorizing the movement. You have one significant point of agreement with it, regarding abortion. However, the evangelicals by and large regard you as an agent of Satan and your Church as his front group.


Second, to call the 1950s a "fascist era" is only a slight exaggeration. We are actually discussing fundamentalism rather than fascism, but actually fascism, expressed as McCarthyism and ultra-nationalism, was quite strong too. More to the point, a return to the '50s in terms of sexual morality (and the gender-role morality that goes with it) is something I would regard with horror. You do not set my mind at ease with this statement.


Third, Bill Clinton was not a liberal.

I hope you can reach a position regarding us that is this open minded.

I honestly don't see how that will ever be possible. The disagreements are too profound and basic, and my own personal experiences too painful. You might as well ask Cuban refugees to be open minded about Castro.


Opusaug:

Am I supposed to be swayed into believing that the majority of the RR is made up of fascist fanatics, based solely on the fact that you "grew up around people of this persuasion"?

It is a fact that the majority of the RR is made up of fascist fanatics (or rather, fundamentalist fanatics, which is not quite the same as fascism though at least equally disagreeable), and so that is what I state without pretending otherwise. Whether you are persuaded of it is your own concern, not mine.


But before you close your own mind, consider this. Many people who have never experienced the evangelical culture, particularly as it exists in the deep South, find an accurate description of that culture inherently unbelievable. Nevertheless, it's there.

HopefulCynic:

Am I to take it that you don't share the Lee Harvey as lone gunman theory?

I do not, though I don't believe in some of the popular conspiracy theories, either. I don't think it could have been Oswald alone because the Soviet archives and his military record show him to be a very poor shot, and he was using an inferior weapon. I do, however, believe he was in on the deal. I think he was guilty, just that he wasn't alone.


The usual conspiracy theories (Mafia, FBI, CIA, etc.) pull in too many conspirators to be credible. The more people are involved in a conspiracy, the harder it is to keep it a secret.


I don't pretend to know who all was involved. I just see holes in the official story, and therefore don't believe it.

Now that is interesting. It's a way out for Kennedy that I hadn't thought of. On the other hand, could he have kept the 'hawks' in the various governments and factions from finding a way to sabotage to election?

What election? He'd have waited until '65, I'm sure.


After that, as we know in hindsight, the biggest political danger came from the left rather than the right. Though he surely didn't know that.

Suppose the horror had followed as it did in the real world. What do you think the American reaction afterward would have been?

If you mean the reeducation camps and the crackdown, I don't think it would have. The years of incredibly brutal war hardened the Vietnamese Communists and turned them much nastier than they had been. A peaceful takeover, or even a military one not preceded by eight or ten years of pattern bombing and napalm strikes, would have seen less drastic behavior.

What if you had a clearly honorable and trustworthy Hero president, who was _still_ determined to 'press on to victory' in Vietnam?

If he was honest about a desire to send American troops to the country in large numbers, I think he would have been defeated in 1964.

First, if you are a Catholic you are not a member of the religious right as I am categorizing the movement. You have one significant point of agreement with it, regarding abortion. However, the evangelicals by and large regard you as an agent of Satan and your Church as his front group.

No, for the most part, we/they (depending on where you draw the defining lines) DON'T! Yes, at one time that attitude was quite common among some evangelicals, but even there it has faded considerably over the years.

Today, except for a genuine fringe, Catholicism is not regarded as the enemy. There _is_ deep ignorance among two many on both sides of that about the detailed theological beliefs of the other, but that is not the same thing.

Second, to call the 1950s a "fascist era" is only a slight exaggeration. We are actually discussing fundamentalism rather than fascism, but actually fascism, expressed as McCarthyism and ultra-nationalism, was quite strong too. More to the point, a return to the '50s in terms of sexual morality (and the gender-role morality that goes with it) is something I would regard with horror. You do not set my mind at ease with this statement.

Your position on sex-role morality is your own choice and belief, and fair enough. But to call the fifties fascist strains my definition of the word.

To me, fascism implies radical revolutionary goals, a desire to rewire society from top to bottom along nationalist/romantic lines.
That's almost the antithesis of the fifties.

Now, we may be using different definitions of the word fascist, and if so, fine.

Third, Bill Clinton was not a liberal.

I hope you can reach a position regarding us that is this open minded.

I honestly don't see how that will ever be possible. The disagreements are too profound and basic, and my own personal experiences too painful. You might as well ask Cuban refugees to be open minded about Castro.


Opusaug:

Am I supposed to be swayed into believing that the majority of the RR is made up of fascist fanatics, based solely on the fact that you "grew up around people of this persuasion"?

It is a fact that the majority of the RR is made up of fascist fanatics (or rather, fundamentalist fanatics, which is not quite the same as fascism though at least equally disagreeable), and so that is what I state without pretending otherwise. Whether you are persuaded of it is your own concern, not mine.


But before you close your own mind, consider this. Many people who have never experienced the evangelical culture, particularly as it exists in the deep South, find an accurate description of that culture inherently unbelievable. Nevertheless, it's there.

I am, from first hand experience, quite familiar with the RR and the evangelicals, just as you seem to be, Brian. (Though I have not at first-hand experienced Texas.)

In our case, we can _both_ speak from first-hand experience.

In fairness, there _are_ some members of the RR, especially its evangelical component, who do regard all non evengelical churches with deep suspicion. They are a small minority today.

I don't and have not asked that you adopt my view of the RR, Brian. I do simply point out that any successful settlement of the 4T will probably have to be at least somewhat palatable to them. They are not a fringe group or a dying minority, for good or bad.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2001-09-27 22:57 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2001-09-27 23:05 ]</font>

HopefulCynic:

Now, we may be using different definitions of the word fascist, and if so, fine.

Fascism is a political philosophy whose core value is national greatness and power. It involves radical revolutionary goals and a rewiring of society from top to bottom only at the extreme. The values of 1950s America included strong elements that were in common with those of Fascist Italy: extreme nationalism, focus on the Enemy, and contempt for freedom. America was as fascist then as the Constitution permits; thankfully, that does provide some limitation.


I would prefer to move forward to the next High, not backward to the last one.

In fairness, there _are_ some members of the RR, especially its evangelical component, who do regard all non evengelical churches with deep suspicion. They are a small minority today.

I just realized something. You speak of "the religious right, especially its evangelical component," implying that the religious right is broader than the evangelicals.


I speak of the evangelical churches, and their religious right subgroup, implying that the evangelical churches are broader in membership than the political religious right.


We are using different definitions of "religious right." To me, "non-evangelical religious right" is oxymoronic. The religious right is a political expression of the evangelical religious subculture. It is not adhered to even by all evangelicals, some of whom are nonpolitical, or keep their faith pure of politics. It is not adhered to by anyone outside that subculture, not even those who may agree on a point or two. A Catholic may be pro-life on abortion, but he or she is not part of the religious right as I am using the term -- unless he or she is a very odd Catholic indeed.


That may be the whole source of our disagreement.

I do simply point out that any successful settlement of the 4T will probably have to be at least somewhat palatable to them. They are not a fringe group or a dying minority, for good or bad.

The religious right, by my definition, IS a fringe group and a dying minority. Apparently I don't altogether understand what you mean by the term, so by that definition you may be right.

I think we're jumping the gun. The Silents and Nomads are of like enough mind to want to fight to protect the nation, but Boomers still own the vision thing, and the real crisis will be about the meaning of America, with Boomers and the young Hero generation fighting to keep Americ really free, as in free speech, freedom for Democracy, freedom from authoritarian, totalitarian pressures to watch what we say, stay unified behind the President at all costs, etc. Consider the recent attempts by the Administration to muzzle dissent or even exposure of competing voices, displeasure over Brokaw's interviewing Bill Clinton at this time, because he would not speak in the very same voice as their's, attempts to keep Voice of America's interview with the Mullah Omar off the air, because it was "not newsworthy," for instance. It's not only the right but actually the duty of Americans to think for themselves and discuss national policy freely, since this is a democracy. Bush said, even before he could expect wartime consideration, about satirists lampooning him, in fact, there should be a law against that (free speech.) This is a real issue, at least as big as terrorism from abroad. In some years there will be a conflict between the generations and competing beliefs about America, something like the Vietnam war era culture clash, and this time it will be in the context of a much more dangerous world crisis, and with much more serious penalties for dissension. Ashcroft is trying right now to pass an anti-terrorist bill that includes life sentences for computer hacking, whether in the service of terrorism or just college kids breaking the law. And that's just one hint of how the war on terrorism is going to be used to shelter the iron hand of unreason. The war on drugs and the war on the terrorists will merge and there will be huge amounts of money spent and many people penalized and imprisoned for nonviolent crimes, among them thought crimes, and communication crimes. The us-versus-them rhetoric the Administration propagates isn't 4th Turning in essence, it's like Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover, xenophobic; and in the end it'll be us (America) versus them, in the fight for our lives. Then the 4th Turning.

I have a question more than a reply. What kind of a generational constellation are we facing on the other side and how does this affect the course that the crisis is likely to take. A couple of things strike me about the other side. The suicide terrorists on the planes seem to have been young. Hero generation age. A generation carrying out the vision of their elders much as our own hero generation will carry out the vision of our elders. Ossama bin Laden and his leadership generation (though only in their forties) seem the profile of the older idealist awakening cultural values Prophet generation type. Two prophet generations (One American and one Islamic) facing each other seems like the scenario for a truly horrific crisis to me. Are there any thoughts on this.

Leslie:

The us-versus-them rhetoric the Administration propagates isn't 4th Turning in essence

Regrettably, I have to disagree. That kind of thing always happens in a Crisis era.


In the American Revolution, tories were silenced by social pressure and sometimes by tarring and feathering. Loyalists ran off to Canada not only because they disapproved of the rebellion but in many cases because they feared for their lives. In the Civil War, Lincoln sent federal troops to occupy Baltimore and prevent the Maryland legislature from seceding. Habeas Corpus was suspended. This is the usual run.


Ashcroft won't get everything he wants, but he'll get some of it. The mood encourages people to sacrifice a measure of liberty to gain security, which, Benjamin Franklin's famous statement notwithstanding, something we do all the time. We just do more of it in a 4T, because people are afraid.