I love the smell of right-wingers making strawmen in the morning.

Originally Posted by zilch

I found a little gem, posted by our highly esteemed Professor in this thread two days following the 9/11 attacks...


I recall Daschle on the night of the 2002 mid-terms moaning "This is the worst night of my life." The future "Gray Champion" was nuked two years later and hasn't been heard from since.

Yep, we remember Hoover all right. The Democrats were all over that historic parallel. And Bush, like FDR, is still considered both a "second-rater" and a diabolical genius.

Can Strauss and Howe help predict the future? Gee whiz, ask the Professor for crying out loud!

So.... in other words, Marc... you now believe that the 4T finally IS here, and that GWB is the Grey Champion? That could very well be where we are... not to say I'd agree we'll have the sort of positive Crisis outcome under Bush (and his successors) as we had under FDR. The '06 and '08 elections will tell.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

So.... in other words, Marc... you now believe that the 4T finally IS here, and that GWB is the Grey Champion? That could very well be where we are... not to say I'd agree we'll have the sort of positive Crisis outcome under Bush (and his successors) as we had under FDR. The '06 and '08 elections will tell.

There isn't just one GC. Gray Champion is a role played by Prophets in a secular crisis turning. If a 4T did begin in 2001, as I believe, then of course Bush is a GC. Even more so is Karl Rove. But there will be other GC's. Not all GC's are successful (i.e. see their visions become reality).

Bush could be a modern version of Sam Adams in that he got the ball rolling in the crisis, but where the ball rolled may not what he intended.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Bush could be a modern version of Sam Adams in that he got the ball rolling in the crisis, but where the ball rolled may not what he intended.

That could end up being true.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

That could end up being true.

I'm hoping you meant a beer. I hate beets!

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, an outspoken critic of President Vladimir Putin, was shot dead on Saturday at her apartment block in central Moscow, police said.

WASHINGTON (AP) - American journalist Robert Woodward, an outspoken critic of President George W. Bush, was shot dead on Saturday at his apartment block in central Washington, police said.

'nuff said, eh?

Originally Posted by zilch

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, an outspoken critic of President Vladimir Putin, was shot dead on Saturday at her apartment block in central Moscow, police said.

WASHINGTON (AP) - American journalist Robert Woodward, an outspoken critic of President George W. Bush, was shot dead on Saturday at his apartment block in central Washington, police said.

'nuff said, eh?

oh, yeah, for more vast right-wing nut jobbery, go (GASP!) here.

September 11th was very spectacular as a cultural and media event that caused a paradigm shift in foreign policy (The Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emptive strike, Unitlaterialism, The War on Terror, the military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc) domestic affairs (strict regulations attributing to the decline of immigration, decline in tourism, heightened airport security) , and government (Department of Homeland Security, The Patriot Act, The Terror alert) and pop culture (satires, shows such as 24, The Grid, etc). Yet I don't see September 11th as creating a full fledged sense of urgency. I describe it as a pre-regeneracy. For a few weeks, Democrats and Republicans appeared before the cameras in pairs, each going out of their way to proclaim unity. This clearly deteriorated within a few months.

S&H described a "pre-regeneracy" lasting one to five years. After the 1929 crash, it was not clear that the disaster was a Big Deal, and no special action seemed required. The years 2002 to 2005 might fit such a pre-regeneracy pattern. The spiral of violence had reached a level that people were rightly concerned, but most did not think full mobilization necessary, and most did not see a need to restructure society in a basic or profound way. I'd argue that there are strong parallels between the period from late 1929-1932 and late 2001-2005, in that following a grand catalyst, the nation rallied behind a president, only to have that support deteriorate amid failure. Allow me to elaborate.

Rarely in history, do you see an Unraveling immediately transition into crisis. You are far more likely to witness transitional periods or turning cusps. In this circumstance, what you have is a pre-regency, in which a society, attempts to build consensus and struggles to find answers to an ongoing crisis. It is during this period that the influence of institutions, which had prevailed during the Unraveling, weakens and approach their nadir. In some cases, the weakness of these institutions will directly contribute to the crisis turning itself.

Despite common belief, the stock market crash in 1929 was not the sole factor that triggered the Great Depression. In fact, going by the standards of the day, that crash was a relatively small downturn. Indeed, the Dow Jones Industrial Average recovered from the crash as early as 1930. Such periodic downturns are merely a result of the boom-bust cycles that are often common during Unravelings (e.g. The crash of 1987, The Recession of the Early-90s, The Dot Com bust, etc.) In this circumstance, this bust was due to the overspeculation of credit, which reached record highs during the late 1920s. Rather, the Depression was a sharp recession that was severely exacerbated by the weakness of economic institutions. The reckless use of the home mortgage and credit, Public Bank Failures, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, and a inadequate Federal Reserve System, topped by a severe drought and dust storm that ravaged the agricultural heartland, all turned a sharp 1930 recession into a perilous 1933 depression.

However, it will have to take some time before Society realizes that it is their own institutions which are contributing to the crisis. As is common in 3rd/4th turning cusps, society will not demand that these institutions be reformed. On the contrary, the public will rally behind these institutions, thinking that the crisis will demand their immediate and undisputed support in order to make a quick recovery. Take for instance, the period briefly following the 1929 crash. Soon after the stock market crash, support for Hoover actually increased. He was able to maintain wages and established a Federal Farm Board that tried to raise farm prices. He accelerated federal funding for construction projects, and contacted all forty-eight state governors to make a similar appeal for expanded public works. In addition, he went to Congress with a $160 million tax cut, coupled with a doubling of resources for public buildings and dams, highways and harbors. Due to his prompt and apparently effective action, Hoover gained widespread public support. “No one in his place could have done more," New York Times in the spring of 1930. "Very few of his predecessors could have done as much."

Parallels can be made to Bush's initial response to 9/11. Following the attacks, he addressed the nation, promising a strong and speedy response to the attacks. He promised to capture Osama Bin Laden, vowed to destroy Al Qaeda, initiated a Global War on Terrorism, established The Department of Homeland Security, managed to get the Patriot Act passed with little difficulty, and rapidly overthrew the Taliban and Saddam with (initially) acceptable casualties by the public's standards. All the meanwhile, he enjoyed significant bi-partisan and international support, and his approval ratings skyrocketed, reaching a high of 88% in the month that followed the 9/11 attacks. Even when the War in Iraq and Afghanisthan became increasingly bleak from 03' to 04', Bush maintained approval ratings well above his current levels (in the upper 40s % – lower 50s % range) and decisively won a re-election.

Yet in both of these instances, hubris got the best of the President – ultimately backfiring against them. In February, Hoover announced—prematurely—that the initial shock had passed and that employment was ebbing. However, unemployment shortly soared from five million in 1930 to over eleven million in 1931. Similarly, Bush declared an end to all major combat operations in Iraq, from the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, in front of a huge banner that read "Mission Accomplished." Following this, however, troop levels escalated as a Sunni-led insurgency ensued, further exacerbated by the Shiite/Sunni sectarian violence we are witnessing today.

When these institutions fail to make due on their earlier promises, and are unable to formulate effective solutions, public confidence in government institutions will reach unprecedented lows, as the crisis worsens. For instance, Hoover's popularity dwindled once the Public felt he was unable reverse the economic decline. Initial widespread support devolved into rampant discontent and frustration. Many Americans began blaming Hoover personally for the Great Depression. By 1932, during the height of the Depression, Hoover became one of the most mocked Presidents in US history – the name Hoover became synonymous with failure. Areas that housed those left unemployed and homeless by the Depression (often in cardboard shacks) began to appear all across America, and were referred to as Hoovervilles. Automobiles pulled by mules were known as “Hoover Carts.” As one woman remarked, Hoover promised to put people back on their feet - he did, "he put them to walking." In retrospect, President Truman would later refer Hoover as an engineer who “backed the train all the way into the waiting room and brought us to panic, depression, and despair.”

This discontent would culminate into the Bonus Army riots. Thousands of WW1 veterans and their families demonstrated and camped out in Washington, D.C., during June 1932,seeking immediate payment of a "bonus" granted by the Adjusted Service Certificate Law. Shots were fired by the police in a futile attempt to attain order, and two protesters were killed while many officers were injured. Hoover subsequently sent U.S. Army forces to disperse the demonstration. Troops carried rifles with unsheathed bayonets and tear gas was sent into the Bonus Army's camps. In the ensuing clash, hundreds of civilians were injured, and over 1,000 men, women, and children were exposed to the tear gas. The visual image of U.S. soldiers marching against poor veterans gave the impression that the government could not deal with the crisis. This event destroyed whatever public support remained for Hoover.

Likewise, popular support for Bush diminished following his re-election victory, as the Iraq War intensified, gas prices rose rapidly, and Bush failed to make good on the goals he promised earlier during his campaign bid (e.g. Social Security reform). The last straw came during Hurricane Katrina. Here, Bush proved unable to protect the nation’s own citizens when they needed him the most. The response to the worst natural disaster in the nation’s history was woefully pitiful. Criticism of the government’s response was rampant in the media, as reports continued to show hunger, deaths, and lack of aid days after the storm itself had passed. The nation was stunned by televised images of people looting in desperation. Even more troubling were the images of visibly shaken residents who remained in New Orleans without water, food or shelter. In the aftermath of the disaster, the government was accused of making things worse, instead of making things better; perhaps even deliberately, by preventing help by others while delaying its own response. A survey conducted on September 2, 2005, showed that 67% of the public blamed the Federal government for the crisis, with 44% blaming President Bush's leadership directly. The poor response to the hurricane caused Bush's approval rating to plummet to 42% – which was at that point, the lowest of his presidency. Since then, Bush has never been able to recover from this event. In fact, the developing sectarian violence in Iraq has caused even more significant damage to his popularity. Currently, his approval rating is 29% - the lowest since Richard Nixon’s just prior to his resignation.

Originally Posted by Millennial_90'

September 11th was very spectacular as a cultural and media event that caused a paradigm shift in foreign policy (The Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emptive strike, Unitlaterialism, The War on Terror, the military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc) domestic affairs (strict regulations attributing to the decline of immigration, decline in tourism, heightened airport security) , and government (Department of Homeland Security, The Patriot Act, The Terror alert) and pop culture (satires, shows such as 24, The Grid, etc). Yet I don't see September 11th as creating a full fledged sense of urgency. I describe it as a pre-regeneracy. For a few weeks, Democrats and Republicans appeared before the cameras in pairs, each going out of their way to proclaim unity. This clearly deteriorated within a few months. ...

(Snip)

The last straw came during Hurricane Katrina. Here, Bush proved unable to protect the nation’s own citizens when they needed him the most. The response to the worst natural disaster in the nation’s history was woefully pitiful. Criticism of the government’s response was rampant in the media, as reports continued to show hunger, deaths, and lack of aid days after the storm itself had passed. The nation was stunned by televised images of people looting in desperation. Even more troubling were the images of visibly shaken residents who remained in New Orleans without water, food or shelter. In the aftermath of the disaster, the government was accused of making things worse, instead of making things better; perhaps even deliberately, by preventing help by others while delaying its own response. A survey conducted on September 2, 2005, showed that 67% of the public blamed the Federal government for the crisis, with 44% blaming President Bush's leadership directly. The poor response to the hurricane caused Bush's approval rating to plummet to 42% – which was at that point, the lowest of his presidency. Since then, Bush has never been able to recover from this event. In fact, the developing sectarian violence in Iraq has caused even more significant damage to his popularity. Currently, his approval rating is 29% - the lowest since Richard Nixon’s just prior to his resignation.

Yep. I'm pretty much with you here, and many posters on the board aren't far different. I used the phrase 'false regeneracy' rather than 'pre-regeneracy,' but that is word choice rather than a disagreement with what you said. September 11th was spectacular enough to have been a Pearl Harbor style fully mobilizing event, had it occurred after the regeneracy. In my opinion, if there is to be a major crisis war, it is generally preceded by a string of violent catalyst events, a spiral of violence. Think of the Sons of Liberty in Boston before the Revolution, John Brown in Kansas and Harper's Ferry, or Hitler's Phony War. This spiral of violence at some point triggers the regeneracy, as people decide they have to fight and what they are fighting for. Normally, only after the spiral of violence does one have a full fledged gloves off mobilizing trigger event.

Immediately after September 11th, when Bush 43 declared that addressing the underlying issues which cause people to turn to terror would be allowing the terrorists to win, I knew he was in big trouble. He was trying an 'On to Richmond' solution to the crisis. He was trying to use military force to maintain the status quo without addressing the changes in society and culture that are required for the successful resolution of any crisis. While he has slowly come to learn that nation building is part of the deal, he is still thinking of the Middle East as having a security problem rather than seeing it as an Agricultural Age region being forced far too quickly into an Industrial Age or perhaps even Information Age pattern. Crises often have military, economic, political, religious and cultural aspects. He was dealing with the military issues only, and seemed unable to address other aspects.

So, yes, he tried a radically different post Cold War foreign policy, but is was far too much brute force, not nearly enough cultural and economic shift.

I'd tend to agree that much of the country was willing to let 43 ride until Katrina blew through. S&H originally projected 2005 as the date when the generations would align properly for 4T. Between Katrina and the developing problems in Iraq, the real mood shift likely began there, and was confirmed by the 2006 mid terms. With a lot of the presidential primaries being shifted into early 2008, the real regeneracy might have to take place over the next year as the Democrats try to pull together an alternate platform.

It has been noted previously that a conservative president who precedes the Grey Champion has gone into the history books as a bumbling failure. Buchanan too fits the pattern of a conservative clinging to old solutions to the developing crisis problems as much of the country sees failing policies and a need to reevaluate. This doesn't mean we'll necessarily see a worthy Grey Champion step up by 2008, but I think the country is ready for one should he (or she) materialize.

Another question I've had is whether the population selects a Grey Champion or whether the times force presidents to become Grey Champions whether they really want to or not. It was suggested that Clinton 42 was familiar with the S&H theories, and wanted to decisively deal with great issues, but was dealing with a political environment which wasn't ready yet. Does Hillary think in similar terms? Obama seems to be using the style of language and sense of scale a Champion my use. I just am not at all sure either of them, or anyone else who is contending, is anything like worthy heirs for the earlier Champions.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Another question I've had is whether the population selects a Grey Champion or whether the times force presidents to become Grey Champions whether they really want to or not. It was suggested that Clinton 42 was familiar with the S&H theories, and wanted to decisively deal with great issues, but was dealing with a political environment which wasn't ready yet. Does Hillary think in similar terms? Obama seems to be using the style of language and sense of scale a Champion my use. I just am not at all sure either of them, or anyone else who is contending, is anything like worthy heirs for the earlier Champions.

I think that the times give Presidents the opportunity to become Grey Champions. Also, circa 1859, Abraham Lincoln did not appear to be much of anything, and circa 1931, FDR was regarded as a lightweight.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Yep. I'm pretty much with you here, and many posters on the board aren't far different. I used the phrase 'false regeneracy' rather than 'pre-regeneracy,' but that is word choice rather than a disagreement with what you said. September 11th was spectacular enough to have been a Pearl Harbor style fully mobilizing event, had it occurred after the regeneracy. In my opinion, if there is to be a major crisis war, it is generally preceded by a string of violent catalyst events, a spiral of violence. Think of the Sons of Liberty in Boston before the Revolution, John Brown in Kansas and Harper's Ferry, or Hitler's Phony War. This spiral of violence at some point triggers the regeneracy, as people decide they have to fight and what they are fighting for. Normally, only after the spiral of violence does one have a full fledged gloves off mobilizing trigger event.

Immediately after September 11th, when Bush 43 declared that addressing the underlying issues which cause people to turn to terror would be allowing the terrorists to win, I knew he was in big trouble. He was trying an 'On to Richmond' solution to the crisis. He was trying to use military force to maintain the status quo without addressing the changes in society and culture that are required for the successful resolution of any crisis. While he has slowly come to learn that nation building is part of the deal, he is still thinking of the Middle East as having a security problem rather than seeing it as an Agricultural Age region being forced far too quickly into an Industrial Age or perhaps even Information Age pattern. Crises often have military, economic, political, religious and cultural aspects. He was dealing with the military issues only, and seemed unable to address other aspects.

So, yes, he tried a radically different post Cold War foreign policy, but is was far too much brute force, not nearly enough cultural and economic shift.

I'd tend to agree that much of the country was willing to let 43 ride until Katrina blew through. S&H originally projected 2005 as the date when the generations would align properly for 4T. Between Katrina and the developing problems in Iraq, the real mood shift likely began there, and was confirmed by the 2006 mid terms. With a lot of the presidential primaries being shifted into early 2008, the real regeneracy might have to take place over the next year as the Democrats try to pull together an alternate platform.

It has been noted previously that a conservative president who precedes the Grey Champion has gone into the history books as a bumbling failure. Buchanan too fits the pattern of a conservative clinging to old solutions to the developing crisis problems as much of the country sees failing policies and a need to reevaluate. This doesn't mean we'll necessarily see a worthy Grey Champion step up by 2008, but I think the country is ready for one should he (or she) materialize.

Another question I've had is whether the population selects a Grey Champion or whether the times force presidents to become Grey Champions whether they really want to or not. It was suggested that Clinton 42 was familiar with the S&H theories, and wanted to decisively deal with great issues, but was dealing with a political environment which wasn't ready yet. Does Hillary think in similar terms? Obama seems to be using the style of language and sense of scale a Champion my use. I just am not at all sure either of them, or anyone else who is contending, is anything like worthy heirs for the earlier Champions.

I totally agree. I'm expecting that whoever wins the '08 elections (most likely a Dem, but a President Guiliani is possible), will be the GC.

Interestingly, The UK looks like it might elect a Tory government in their next election. A Dem president in the US, a Tory government in the UK, just like the last crisis!

Please, no more compairisons between FDR and Churchill until there is reason for one. In the last six years I've heard so many blowhards using phraises like "the heavy hand of desteny is upon these two" whenever Bush and Blair were together on TV. It's so pathetic to see the patently unqualified pretending to be GC's, I've had enough bad psudo
history for this 4t.

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I am for the first opinion give those terrorists a long painful burning death.

I mentioned these and these as additions to our arsenal. The is fact that you can essentially design a wide array of half lives for different purposes. You'd use the short half life high neutron/gamma flux for a quick kill for say a terrorist bunker. (We could use these in the US if needed, since the fallout isn't such a big deal. ) On the other end of the spectrum, you have the cobalt-60 bomb which renders areas useless for centuries. Since the WOT is a 4th generation war by nature, you need 4th generation weaponry and tactics to go with it. I think the only thing stopping their actual use is we haven't decided on how to fit them into a proper war plan and hangups on all things nuclear in general. The other facet is to get ourselves off the Mideast oil since any escalation would lead to a shutoff, via embargoes or oil wells going up in flames. I'm not really into any emotional aspects. The nuclear option just shouldn't be taken off the table if the weapon at hand lends itself to the best strategic outcome. If you need to vaporize a deep bunker, then a tantalum bomb would be the way to go for example. OTOH, if there's a swatch of enemy friendly land and if that land were to be rendered useless, then the long acting cobalt-60 bomb would be the weapon of choice. I'm sure conventional arms would also be used for conduction 4th generation warfare as well, it's just that I like a wide array of options so we have the weapons to go with strategic niches.

So... I think it comes down to this. Is the US ready to go the distance and inflict Dresden, Hirososhima, and Nagasaki type attacks yet? I think it also comes down to are we ready to build nuclear power plants as well? Renewables are nice, but at present, I don't think they can replace the energy imports. This switchover, I think would be rather economically painful, since the scope of it is rather large. This is especially true, since our fundamental economic situation is rotten to the core. Obviously all of the above are a huge departure from what's been going on so far.

FWIW, I have no problems with nuclear plants in my back yard. I'd prefer to have them with my lights on and essential civic functions like water, sewage treatment, etc. than the alternative. Sometimes you just have to pick and not waffle around.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Obama seems to be using the style of language and sense of scale a Champion my use.

The rush of good feeling about Obama strikes me as a very preseasonal echo of "I like Ike."

Immediately after September 11th, when Bush 43 declared that addressing the underlying issues which cause people to turn to terror would be allowing the terrorists to win, I knew he was in big trouble. He was trying an 'On to Richmond' solution to the crisis. He was trying to use military force to maintain the status quo without addressing the changes in society and culture that are required for the successful resolution of any crisis. While he has slowly come to learn that nation building is part of the deal, he is still thinking of the Middle East as having a security problem rather than seeing it as an Agricultural Age region being forced far too quickly into an Industrial Age or perhaps even Information Age pattern. Crises often have military, economic, political, religious and cultural aspects. He was dealing with the military issues only, and seemed unable to address other aspects.

Your segment on Bush was right on the money. Easily the dopest analysis I've seen on Bush's failed strategy Bush attempted to resolve an ideological and cultural conflict without making the necessary social changes - especially at the homefront. You can't wage a global war (the likes of which hasn't been seen since WWII) without mobiliziing the nation's "social capitol" (our reserve of bonds and trust in civic institutions) that hold us together as a nation.

3T-style wars tends to start with great ethusiasm after a swift victory, but are proceeded with little follow through. The First Gulf War shared a similiar pattern, a swift triumph that witnessed the US display its full strength as a Superpower - with comparatively low casualties. Yet rather then continue enforcing its dominance by disposing Saddam, the US reverted to multilateralism and relative isolationism under Clinton. When the nation did engage in global conflicts, they tended to feature strict diplomatic restrictions that restrained the nation's ability to exhert its influence abroad (e.g. Somalia, Haiti, the conflict in the Balkans). Public tolerance for "nation building" operations was low and maintaining high opinion polls was the rule of thumb. The initial invasion of the current Iraq War resembled this: It began with a swift invasion that had acceptable casualties and was backed by Congress. The social atmosphere was still very much in the 3T (though it was undergoing subtle changes towards the 4T).

Knowing that the public could not commit to a prolonged conflict, Bush declared victory prematurely. He entered this war believing it would have a quick and speedy end like the First Gult War (and even Afghanisthan, to a lesser extent). Without taking into account the ethnic makeup of Iraq and the historical rivalry between Sunnis and Shia's, he believed that reconstructing Iraq would require modest time and effort, and that the country could be stablized and up on its feet in a matter of time (just like with the Kuwaitis in 91' and Afghans in 02'). US troops would return home to a cheerful public homecoming at the end of the day But we all know how the real story ends.

My point is this: you cannot wage a 3T-style war in a 4T environment. Bush should have prepared the Homefront to make sacrifices and maintain their patience. He could've rallied homefront support by channelling the initial ethusiasm into volunteer groups and donation initiatives. In the aftermath of 9/11, he made a few notable steps towards building up civic service. He created the USA Freedom Crops to increase volunteer participation in homeland security. This resembled the CCC work relief program enacted by FDR to combat poverty and unemployment following The Depression. During the invasion of Afghanistan, he created the "America's Fund for Afghan Children," to encourage children to donate 1$ for relief efforts of Afghan children. This was modeled on the original 1938 March of Dimes campaign, during which FDR appealed to American children to each donate a dime to help eradicate polio. Unfortunately, Bush civic iniative has lost momentum ever since, and the the number of Americans volunteering has decreased by over 4 million between 2005 and 2006 - the lowest since 2002 when Bush first enacted these program.

Another question I've had is whether the population selects a Grey Champion or whether the times force presidents to become Grey Champions whether they really want to or not. It was suggested that Clinton 42 was familiar with the S&H theories, and wanted to decisively deal with great issues, but was dealing with a political environment which wasn't ready yet. Does Hillary think in similar terms? Obama seems to be using the style of language and sense of scale a Champion my use. I just am not at all sure either of them, or anyone else who is contending, is anything like worthy heirs for the earlier Champions.

This is where I disagree with you. Neither Obama nor Hilary are Champions IMO. Hilary Clinton is a polarizing (rather than unifying) figure, who has not yet shown any of the leadership qualities we tend to associate with Idealists. The Boom generation, as a whole, has yet to show any potiental for generating effective leaders (though Gulliani may be a promising alternative for some). Obama, as the prototypical Gen Xer, despises the very "moralistic, principled. and values-based politics" that this current crisis needs. Regardless, I'd still vouch for him anyday.

Originally Posted by The Pervert

The rush of good feeling about Obama strikes me as a very preseasonal echo of "I like Ike."

Which suggests that even if Obama loses in '08, he could eventually emerge as a First Turning President during the coming High... now perhaps 14-15 years away.

Originally Posted by Millennial_90'

This is where I disagree with you. Neither Obama nor Hilary are Champions IMO. Hilary Clinton is a polarizing (rather than unifying) figure, who has not yet shown any of the leadership qualities we tend to associate with Idealists. The Boom generation, as a whole, has yet to show any potential for generating effective leaders (though Gulliani may be a promising alternative for some). Obama, as the prototypical Gen Xer, despises the very "moralistic, principled. and values-based politics" that this current crisis needs. Regardless, I'd still vouch for him anyday.

Gulliani might be respected as championish around the country, but in New York he is considered something of a polarizing divider. I have my own doubts about Hilary and Obama, which aren't identical to yours. I guess I'll have to hope that the times make the president more than the president makes the times.

Still, the Champion's role might be to set high idealist goals and provide a little inspiration, and stay out of the way of the more edgy nomads and pragmatic artists who actually get the job done. Obama might have some Gen X attributes, but he can issue the required goals and set an acceptable tone.

I like S&H's theories, but not every trend will come true in every crisis. Not every Grey Champion is going to bang on hit every element of the S&H stereotype. I tend to think Obama can play the public persona aspects of the role better than the polarizing dividers, but there is a good deal of regeneracy to work through. They all have their chance to unify and inspire. If any of them are worthy of the role, they have to prove it.

Me, I'm waiting for someone to stop sniping at Republicans in a safe way cautiously and stand up. Something like...

"If elected, unless and until Congress passes a true formal declaration of war, I shall honor all writs of habeous corpus. I believe in the US Bill of Rights, including the due process clauses of the Fourth Amendment. I believe in the Geneva Convention. No matter how much an enemy might hate the United States, and oppose what I stand for, I shall give him the appropriate rights and protections of the Bill of Rights or the Geneva Convention. I shall not strive to exploit any perceived gaps between the two. There are no humans without human rights...

"I shall not seek surveillance on American citizens on American soil without warrants, without strict oversight by the judiciary, and the Congress. However, I shall be certain to have sufficient judges and procedures in place such that constitutional oversight shall not be a limit on security. We cannot defend America by giving up on that which makes us Americans..."

I could go on, but that's the sort of tone I'm looking for. So far, the tone of the campaigns are more 3T partisan sniping rather than grand theme. It seems safer to snipe at Bush 43's faults than stand up and make one's self clearly different. Obama is trying more than a little to do grand theme, but even he is playing a bit safe by 4T standards.

Time will tell, but we are starting to run a bit low on time.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Please, no more comparisons between FDR and Churchill until there is reason for one. In the last six years I've heard so many blowhards using phrases like "the heavy hand of destiny is upon these two" whenever Bush and Blair were together on TV. It's so pathetic to see the patently unqualified pretending to be GC's, I've had enough bad pseudo history for this 4t.

Did not the heavy hand of destiny lie upon Chamberlain and Hoover as well?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Gulliani might be respected as championish around the country, but in New York he is considered something of a polarizing divider. I have my own doubts about Hilary and Obama, which aren't identical to yours. I guess I'll have to hope that the times make the president more than the president makes the times.

Still, the Champion's role might be to set high idealist goals and provide a little inspiration, and stay out of the way of the more edgy nomads and pragmatic artists who actually get the job done. Obama might have some Gen X attributes, but he can issue the required goals and set an acceptable tone.

I like S&H's theories, but not every trend will come true in every crisis. Not every Grey Champion is going to bang on hit every element of the S&H stereotype. I tend to think Obama can play the public persona aspects of the role better than the polarizing dividers, but there is a good deal of regeneracy to work through. They all have their chance to unify and inspire. If any of them are worthy of the role, they have to prove it.

Me, I'm waiting for someone to stop sniping at Republicans in a safe way cautiously and stand up. Something like...



I could go on, but that's the sort of tone I'm looking for. So far, the tone of the campaigns are more 3T partisan sniping rather than grand theme. It seems safer to snipe at Bush 43's faults than stand up and make one's self clearly different. Obama is trying more than a little to do grand theme, but even he is playing a bit safe by 4T standards.

Time will tell, but we are starting to run a bit low on time.

Mr. Paul (R-TX) has stood up for the Constitution of Our Commercial Republic against the Progress of Bush-Clinton-Bush. He has two chances to be the the GC, slim and none.

I think to be taken more seriously he ought get a few more wives. The race seems to be getting the most campaign cash and alimony receipts before the Primary Season of 2008 for the GOP.

The Democrats are mainly going for a money contest and who has a bigger one (square footage and energy bills weigh in here) in the domicile arena.

... every wife had seven sacks,
every sack seven stacks of cash,
every stack seven Franklin bills.
Bills, stacks, sacks, wives--
How many were going down the hills?

In a race with GOP polygamy and Democrat avarice, who would you think the GC might be? Or is it yet 3T?
Harem? or Palace?

The rush of good feeling about Obama strikes me as a very preseasonal echo of "I like Ike."

This makes a lot of sense, especially when considering the unusually harsh 4T we've been experiencing this go around the cycle. Ike was quite the easy going militarist, whether he was shooting the the Bonus Marchers in 1932 or killin' Krauts in 1944. He seemed to make all the mass bloodshed and firebombing clean, pristine and kinda cool, man.

Given this 4T makes the previous one Ike danced thru look like gentle walk thru the park on a warm, sunny Sunday afternoon, Obama is quite striking for his likeable unIkeness. It's like Obama, for all his niceness, can't help but shine brightly beneath the contemptible darkness of ,say, a racist facsist homophobic Bush or Cheney.

How refreshing, eh?

Originally Posted by zilch

The rush of good feeling about Obama strikes me as a very preseasonal echo of "I like Ike."

This makes a lot of sense, especially when considering the unusually harsh 4T we've been experiencing this go around the cycle. Ike was quite the easy going militarist, whether he was shooting the the Bonus Marchers in 1932 or killin' Krauts in 1944. He seemed to make all the mass bloodshed and firebombing clean, pristine and kinda cool, man.

Given this 4T makes the previous one Ike danced thru look like gentle walk thru the park on a warm, sunny Sunday afternoon, Obama is quite striking for his likeable unIkeness. It's like Obama, for all his niceness, can't help but shine brightly beneath the contemptible darkness of ,say, a racist facsist homophobic Bush or Cheney.

How refreshing, eh?

Uh no. Bush/Cheny are postseasonal since they like sleeping with assorted
Mideast regimes and focusing on Oil. My guess is that all that money poured down that rathole could have been put to better use devoping domestic energy. As for Ike, I'd guess it would be a Trumanesqe nomad/prophet cusper who'd show no hesitation in seeking redemption of the mushroom cloud. Be afraid zilch, be very afraid After all, Obama is one of us cuspers...

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

As for Ike, I'd guess it would be a Trumanesqe nomad/prophet cusper who'd show no hesitation in seeking redemption of the mushroom cloud. Be afraid zilch, be very afraid After all, Obama is one of us cuspers...

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, too. Obama's gonna have to nuke somebody. so as to prove he's a really likable nomad. I would assume it'll be a few places in flyover country U.S.A. that'll witness his charm. Or maybe Texas. That would make Obama a bunch of friends in NYC, France and all over the world.

Originally Posted by zilch

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, too. Obama's gonna have to nuke somebody. so as to prove he's a really likable nomad. I would assume it'll be a few places in flyover country U.S.A. that'll witness his charm. Or maybe Texas. That would make Obama a bunch of friends in NYC, France and all over the world.

Oh please. Obama is not a hater. If anything he'll go out of his way to cozy up to the red states.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Did not the heavy hand of destiny lie upon Chamberlain and Hoover as well?

Yeah, and I bet some yellow journalist wrote about the "heavy hand of destiny " being on Presdent Hayes and Disraeli too.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Please, no more compairisons between FDR and Churchill until there is reason for one. In the last six years I've heard so many blowhards using phraises like "the heavy hand of desteny is upon these two" whenever Bush and Blair were together on TV. It's so pathetic to see the patently unqualified pretending to be GC's, I've had enough bad psudo
history for this 4t.

Amen to that!