There are an awful lot of Indignent Liberals over in Israel, especially since the latest intifada.

Originally Posted by zilch

And if by chance he failed, Gore would've been the first one on the scene to catch the falling bodies while holding up the two towers until everyone was safely out.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Times like these you remind me why I agitate to keep you around.

agreed. every 'net forum needs a good supply of electronic toilet paper.

The point is not that the Indignant Liberal turns out to be once burned twice shy. The point is that the Indignant Liberal loses his faith.

I've met ppl like this in life. Ex feminist commies who get burned, lose their faith, and then turn out to be the most mercenary businessmen you can imagine. Far moreso than the conservative who assumed that his competition was out to get him, who assumed he was judged for his clothes and cars, and assumed what made him attractive to women was his money not his brains. Hell, the worst that will happen to the conservative is that he will see the rest of the world with a little humanity.

Originally Posted by antichrist

The point is not that the Indignant Liberal turns out to be once burned twice shy. The point is that the Indignant Liberal loses his faith.

But only temporarily, or perhaps more accurately, the IL comes to recognize that there can be exceptions to his world view. I believe (or perhaps I hope) the IL keeps his faith; he just comes to the realization that evil does exist and threatens the vast majority that he believes have the fundamental potential for goodness and rationality. The desire to protect that world view perhaps, more than anything else, steeds him and those that follow to undertake the otherwise but necessary horrific feats to dispose of the threatening evil.

I believe (or again, hope) that when the dust settles, the IL returns to what pbrower speaks of above -

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The indignant liberal is still a liberal and recognizes some appropriate restraints upon the drive for revenge. Let's remember that we chose quickly enough to recognize the Italians as victims of Mussolini... and of course that we chose to not visit upon the Germans and Japanese the horrors that they inflicted upon other nations. The liberal still has the capacity for pity... something that can make the difference between a lasting victory and an unending Apocalypse.

- the Marshall Plan is evident of that .

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The indignant liberal is still a liberal and recognizes some appropriate restraints upon the drive for revenge. Let's remember... that we chose to not visit upon the Germans and Japanese the horrors that they inflicted upon other nations.

Whether for reasons of determined obfuscation or just plain inept reading of history, liberals today are on a laughable mission to rewrite their inglorious past. The truth of such wonderful restraint toward our enemies, as fondly recalled by the pbower poster, was actually a bit unrestrained in these glowing words spoken by one who was actually there at the time:

My fellow Americans:

I have just returned from Berlin, the city from which the Germans intended to rule the world. It is a ghost city. The buildings are in ruins, its economy and its people are in ruins.

Our party also visited what is left of Frankfurt and Darmstadt. We flew over the remains of Kassel, Magdeburg, and other devastated cities. German women and children and old men were wandering over the highways, returning to bombed-out homes or leaving bombed out cities, searching for food and shelter.

War has indeed come home to Germany and to the German people. It has come home in all the frightfulness with which the German leaders started and waged it...

... We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war. -- President Truman (Radio addresses to the nation, Aug 6-9, 1945)

But, yes, I digress: SuperGore and his Millies will, this time around, truly leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Originally Posted by zilch

Whether for reasons of determined obfuscation or just plain inept reading of history, liberals today are on a laughable mission to rewrite their inglorious past. The truth of such wonderful restraint toward our enemies, as fondly recalled by the pbower poster, was actually a bit unrestrained in these glowing words spoken by one who was actually there at the time:

My fellow Americans:

I have just returned from Berlin, the city from which the Germans intended to rule the world. It is a ghost city. The buildings are in ruins, its economy and its people are in ruins.

Our party also visited what is left of Frankfurt and Darmstadt. We flew over the remains of Kassel, Magdeburg, and other devastated cities. German women and children and old men were wandering over the highways, returning to bombed-out homes or leaving bombed out cities, searching for food and shelter.

War has indeed come home to Germany and to the German people. It has come home in all the frightfulness with which the German leaders started and waged it...

... We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war. -- President Truman (Radio addresses to the nation, Aug 6-9, 1945)

But, yes, I digress: SuperGore and his Millies will, this time around, truly leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Z - That is a perfect example of exactly the point, or at least part of it. The IL when faced by pure evil is capable (and getting the nation capable) of horrendous things; the combination of an IL and Nomad (i.e. bomb-dropping Truman) even more so.

BUT, the part you are missing is pbrower's point that the IL does not forever abandon his basic belief in the goodness of man; with the evil threat decimated, he returns to his principles.

When the Marshall Plan seemed to be going off track in Germany, who did Truman send to get to the bottom of what was going array?

Hoover!

-- Now that Truman action reflects a sense of return to seeing the 'good in most' at a couple of levels, no?

To go a little farther -- maybe its that promise of such a return to a world view of "potential for goodness" that allows the masses to sustain the trust in IL leaders during a time of doing horrific but necessary things.

And to go probable where I shouldn't -- perhaps this goes to the very heart of your misunderstanding and/or anger over public perceptions of FDR/Truman versus those currently expressed towards your beloved Bush?

Originally Posted by salsabob

BUT, the part you are missing is pbrower's point that the IL [indignant liberal] does not forever abandon his basic belief in the goodness of man; with the evil threat decimated, he returns to his principles.

When the Marshall Plan seemed to be going off track in Germany, who did Truman send to get to the bottom of what was going array?

Hoover!

I see. First, IL destroys the village, in order to save it. Then, after waiting three years, the IL, lest he "forever abandon his basic belief in the goodness of man," determines to rebuild what he destroyed in order to save. And then, when things go badly, IL calls on a disgraced old conservative to set things straight.

Um, I understand now. Yeah, Bush sucks, too.

Another case in point, years after resigning in disgrace over Watergate, Nixon's knowledge of foreign affairs was so well respected that future leaders sought advice from him. And by the time he died, he was all but exonerated for Watergate. Guess many figured that he really didn't do anything worse than many others pols did, his biggest sin was in getting caught.

And did you hear that the sports world's equivalent to Nixon admitted to betting on every baseball game he ever managed?

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

And did you hear that the sports world's equivalent to Nixon admitted to betting on every baseball game he ever managed?

Yeah, let's imagine silly pop-culture being the "equivalent" who-gets-to-press-the-nuke button...

... well, I guess imagining is reality, eh? Woody Hayes? Vince Lombardi? Nixon v. McGovern, Reagan v. Carter or Mondale?

What? Bush v. "a kinder, gentler" Dukakis? Bush v. "compassionate" Gore or Kerry?

Ergo "conservative" will always simply mean evil, nativist, racist, bigoted, sexist and anti-child no matter what.

Originally Posted by zilch

Ergo "conservative" will always simply mean evil, nativist, racist, bigoted, sexist and anti-child no matter what.

You forgot to mention the strawman arguments, personal attacks, lies, pornography and obscenity that we come to expect. Mind you, not every conservative tries so hard to embody every negative stereotype...

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

I think -ette
is modernly Ms.-understood. Is a bachelorette party a fest for a "Lite" un-married man on his way to being institutionalized?

I believe that the diminutive is a simple "-et" without the doubling...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I believe that the diminutive is a simple "-et" without the doubling...

This is Virgil. In the Society for Creative Anachronism, we used to call it "speaking forsoothly." The cute schtick was to never speak clearly when one can insert or invent obsolete language forms.

It was amusing when the ladies were wearing full length gowns and the men full weight armor... There are many approaches to studying history. Some make better excuses to hold tournaments and parties than others.

Hmm... I've been watching this 'indignant liberal' stuff being bounced around, and have been trying to work up enough energy to get indignant. I suppose if I can get worked up about forsoothly obfuscation, I should touch bases with a real indignant liberal. There is a place in the world for people who see something wrong, and get indignant. William Lloyd Garrison, for example, wrote in 1854...

Let me define my positions, and at the same time challenge anyone to show wherein they are untenable.

I am a believer in that portion of the Declaration of American Independence in which it is set forth, as among self-evident truths, "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Hence, I am an abolitionist. Hence, I cannot but regard oppression in every form - and most of all, that which turns a man into a thing - with indignation and abhorrence. Not to cherish these feelings would be recreancy to principle. They who desire me to be dumb on the subject of slavery, unless I will open my mouth in its defense, ask me to give the lie to my professions, to degrade my manhood, and to stain my soul. I will not be a liar, a poltroon, or a hypocrite, to accommodate any party, to gratify any sect, to escape any odium or peril, to save any interest, to preserve any institution, or to promote any object. Convince me that one man may rightfully make another man his slave, and I will no longer subscribe to the Declaration of Independence. Convince me that liberty is not the inalienable birthright of every human being, of whatever complexion or clime, and I will give that instrument to the consuming fire. I do not know how to espouse freedom and slavery together. I do not know how to worship God and Mammon at the same time. If other men choose to go upon all fours, I choose to stand erect, as God designed every man to stand. If, practically falsifying its heaven-attested principles, this nation denounces me for refusing to imitate its example, then, adhering all the more tenaciously to those principles, I will not cease to rebuke it for its guilty inconsistency. Numerically, the contest may be an unequal one, for the time being; but the author of liberty and the source of justice, the adorable God, is more than multitudinous, and he will defend the right. My crime is that I will not go with the multitude to do evil. My singularity is that when I say that freedom is of God and slavery is of the devil, I mean just what I say. My fanaticism is that I insist on the American people abolishing slavery or ceasing to prate of the rights of man…

The abolitionism which I advocate is as absolute as the law of God, and as unyielding as his throne. It admits of no compromise. Every slave is a stolen man; every slaveholder is a man stealer. By no precedent, no example, no law, no compact, no purchase, no bequest, no inheritance, no combination of circumstances, is slaveholding right or justifiable. While a slave remains in his fetters, the land must have no rest. Whatever sanctions his doom must be pronounced accursed. The law that makes him a chattel is to be trampled underfoot; the compact that is formed at his expense, and cemented with his blood, is null and void; the church that consents to his enslavement is horribly atheistical; the religion that receives to its communion the enslaver is the embodiment of all criminality. Such, at least, is the verdict of my own soul, on the supposition that I am to be the slave; that my wife is to be sold from me for the vilest purposes; that my children are to be torn from my arms, and disposed of to the highest bidder, like sheep in the market. And who am I but a man? What right have I to be free, that another man cannot prove himself to possess by nature? Who or what are my wife and children, that they should not be herded with four-footed beasts, as well as others thus sacredly related?…

If the slaves are not men; if they do not possess human instincts, passions, faculties, and powers; if they are below accountability, and devoid of reason; if for them there is no hope of immortality, no God, no heaven, no hell; if, in short, they are what the slave code declares them to be, rightly "deemed, sold, taken, reputed and adjudged in law to be chattels personal in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators and assigns, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever"; then, undeniably, I am mad, and can no longer discriminate between a man and a beast. But, in that case, away with the horrible incongruity of giving them oral instruction, of teaching them the catechism, of recognizing them as suitably qualified to be members of Christian churches, of extending to them the ordinance of baptism, and admitting them to the communion table, and enumerating many of them as belonging to the household of faith! Let them be no more included in our religious sympathies or denominational statistics than are the dogs in our streets, the swine in our pens, or the utensils in our dwellings. It is right to own, to buy, to sell, to inherit, to breed, and to control them, in the most absolute sense. All constitutions and laws which forbid their possession ought to be so far modified or repealed as to concede the right.

But, if they are men; if they are to run the same career of immortality with ourselves; if the same law of God is over them as over all others; if they have souls to be saved or lost; if Jesus included them among those for whom he laid down his life; if Christ is within many of them "the hope of glory"; then, when I claim for them all that we claim for ourselves, because we are created in the image of God, I am guilty of no extravagance, but am bound, by every principle of honor, by all the claims of human nature, by obedience to Almighty God, to "remember them that are in bonds as bound with them," and to demand their immediate and unconditional emancipation…

These are solemn times. It is not a struggle for national salvation; for the nation, as such, seems doomed beyond recovery. The reason why the South rules, and the North falls prostrate in servile terror, is simply this: with the South, the preservation of slavery is paramount to all other considerations - above party success, denominational unity, pecuniary interest, legal integrity, and constitutional obligation. With the North, the preservation of the Union is placed above all other things - above honor, justice, freedom, integrity of soul, the Decalogue and the Golden Rule - the infinite God himself. All these she is ready to discard for the Union. Her devotion to it is the latest and the most terrible form of idolatry. She has given to the slave power a carte blanche, to be filled as it may dictate - and if, at any time, she grows restive under the yoke, and shrinks back aghast at the new atrocity contemplated, it is only necessary for that power to crack the whip of disunion over her head, as it has done again and again, and she will cower and obey like a plantation slave - for has she not sworn that she will sacrifice everything in heaven and on earth, rather than the Union?

What then is to be done? Friends of the slave, the question is not whether by our efforts we can abolish slavery, speedily or remotely - for duty is ours, the result is with God; but whether we will go with the multitude to do evil, sell our birthright for a mess of pottage, cease to cry aloud and spare not, and remain in Babylon when the command of God is "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." Let us stand in our lot, "and having done all, to stand." At least, a remnant shall be saved. Living or dying, defeated or victorious, be it ours to exclaim, "No compromise with slavery! Liberty for each, for all, forever! Man above all institutions! The supremacy of God over the whole earth!"

Yes, one can imagine indignant liberals doing the wrong thing out of emotion. I'll just mention it is also possible for complacent conservatives to do the wrong thing for the sake of profits. There is a place in fourth turnings for indignant progressives. It is possible that we are erring not on the side of being too indignant, but of not being indignant enough.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I believe that the diminutive is a simple "-et" without the doubling...

I fear that belief creates reality only for the Crown of Creation. If you could find a Boomer to believe so schismatically, please have him post.


As to Mr. Butler's comic assertions, my older copy (circa 1980) of the OED has bachelorette (nor bacheloret) not.

Mr. H. L. Mencken in his The American Language: Supplement I shows that many of these constructions come from the era of "That Man". And almost all are from the 20th Century. He cites Mr. Dwight Bolinger of American Speech for collecting usherette, tractorette (a lady on an Allis-Chalmers, a dame on a John Deere), firette ( a woman with a pole and a Dalmatian at her workplace-and it is not a dancing pole nor performing dog), bachelorette,glamorette, laughette, Latin Quarterette, greeterette, welcomette, centaurette, legionette, dudette (a female pretending to be a cowgirl), drum-majorette, chaufferette, staggette, realtyette .

Only

Originally Posted by H. L. Mencken

"a larval movie queen is not a starlette, but a starlet, and one full of malicious animal magnetism is an oomphlet.

This is the language of the gray flannel suit and the Chanel dress and not the armor and wimple our Progressive Mr. Butler would have you believe.

Originally Posted by zilch

I see. First, IL destroys the village, in order to save it. Then, after waiting three years, the IL, lest he "forever abandon his basic belief in the goodness of man," determines to rebuild what he destroyed in order to save. And then, when things go badly, IL calls on a disgraced old conservative to set things straight.

Um, I understand now. Yeah, Bush sucks, too.

The structures that were destroyed by the ILs in the last 4Ts were colonialism, slavery, and fascism; I see no evidence that these ILs then turned around to rebuild those structures. Clearly, your point of view on this aspect of the IL theory is utterly and completely wrongheaded.

However, what happens on the "back end" of a 4T, i.e., pBrower's return of the IL to pursuing his basic principles, is admittedly a little more mixed; giving your point of view here on the IL at least some merit.

The already-mentioned Marshall Plan is hard to argue against, particularly when compared to what happen after the 2T event known as WW 1. However, post-American Revolution was a little more mixed. About 2% of the colonies' population felt it necessary to flee the newly-established country due to their loyalty to Britain. But, on the other hand, thousands of captives on both sides that could have been hung for treason were instead eventually set free. The real negative to the “back end” of that 4T though was that the American colonies were disconnected from the British ban on slavery in the colonies, allowing that sickness to continue into the next 4T of the 1860s. And in regard to that 4T, much of the aftermath after the Civil War is nothing for any American to be too proud of either.

So while your point of view of the IL on the 'front-end' is asinine, you do have somewhat of a valid point on the 4T “back-end,”' given some rather mixed results.

Also to note - your "destroys the village, in order to save it" is most often attributed to the Viet Nam War -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Tre

which of course was a 1T/2T war. During those times, perhaps the last thing the country needs is an IL pulling us into war (perhaps Korea as well as Nam). Maybe those days are best served by a leader with a different dichotomy - a risk-taking conservative?

Nixon!

If only he hadn’t been so paranoid and dishonest!

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Hmm... I've been watching this 'indignant liberal' stuff being bounced around, and have been trying to work up enough energy to get indignant. I suppose if I can get worked up about forsoothly obfuscation, I should touch bases with a real indignant liberal. There is a place in the world for people who see something wrong, and get indignant. William Lloyd Garrison, for example, wrote in 1854...



Yes, one can imagine indignant liberals doing the wrong thing out of emotion. I'll just mention it is also possible for complacent conservatives to do the wrong thing for the sake of profits. There is a place in fourth turnings for indignant progressives. It is possible that we are erring not on the side of being too indignant, but of not being indignant enough.

A lot of good humor here. Thanks!

In 4Ts, the IL may be doing exactly the correct thing (e.g. taking on slavery, fascism) and it is not only emotional. It may be coming to a clear rational understanding of the exception to his rule (i.e. the goodness of men) being so utterly horrendous.

But what makes the man "flip the switch" from verbal outrage to picking up the gun. Pearl Harbor is obvious. But here is one of the most intriguing ones -

Brown and the free state settlers were optimistic that they could bring Kansas into the union as a slavery-free state. But in late 1855 and early 1856 it was increasingly clear to Brown that pro-slavery forces were willing to violate the rule of law in order to force Kansas to become a slave state. Brown believed that terrorism, fraud, and eventually deadly attacks became the obvious agenda of the pro-slavery supporters, then known as "Border Ruffians." After the winter snows thawed in 1856, the pro-slavery activists began a campaign to seize Kansas on their own terms. Brown was particularly affected by the Sacking of Lawrence in May 1856, in which a sheriff-led posse destroyed newspaper offices and a hotel. Only one man was killed, and it was a Border Ruffian. Preston Brooks's brutal caning of anti-slavery Senator Charles Sumner also fueled Brown's anger. These violent acts were accompanied by celebrations in the pro-slavery press, with writers such as B. F. Stringfellow of the Squatter Sovereign proclaiming that pro-slavery forces "are determined to repel this Northern invasion, and make Kansas a Slave State; though our rivers should be covered with the blood of their victims, and the carcasses of the Abolitionists should be so numerous in the territory as to breed disease and sickness, we will not be deterred from our purpose" (quoted in Reynolds, p. 162). Brown was outraged by both the violence of the pro-slavery forces, and also by what he saw as a weak and cowardly response by the antislavery partisans and the Free State settlers, who he described as "cowards, or worse" (Reynolds pp. 163-164).

One can almost feel his indignation coming to a Harper's Ferry boil.

Originally Posted by salsabob

The structures that were destroyed by the ILs in the last 4Ts were colonialism, slavery, and fascism; I see no evidence that these ILs then turned around to rebuild those structures. Clearly, your point of view on this aspect of the IL theory is utterly and completely wrongheaded.

However, what happens on the "back end" of a 4T, i.e., pBrower's return of the IL to pursuing his basic principles, is admittedly a little more mixed; giving your point of view here on the IL at least some merit.

The already-mentioned Marshall Plan is hard to argue against, particularly when compared to what happen after the 2T event known as WW 1. However, post-American Revolution was a little more mixed. About 2% of the colonies' population felt it necessary to flee the newly-established country due to their loyalty to Britain. But, on the other hand, thousands of captives on both sides that could have been hung for treason were instead eventually set free. The real negative to the “back end” of that 4T though was that the American colonies were disconnected from the British ban on slavery in the colonies, allowing that sickness to continue into the next 4T of the 1860s. And in regard to that 4T, much of the aftermath after the Civil War is nothing for any American to be too proud of either.

So while your point of view of the IL on the 'front-end' is asinine, you do have somewhat of a valid point on the 4T “back-end,”' given some rather mixed results.

Interesting distinction between front end and back ends. I generally see 4Ts as times of pragmatic upheavals. There is a problem that needs to be fixed, such as colonial imperialism, slavery, or fascism. One does what one needs to to fix it, including throwing out a lot of old traditions. That would be the front end. In the back end, when everyone is tired of upheaval, one has to invent the new traditions. One writes constitutions, amends them, or otherwise tries to lock the lessons learned of conflict into a new normal which the conservatives will likely try to defend through the following awakening and crisis.

There is a limit to how long people are willing to put up with chaos and upheaval. I can understand why folks want out of pragmatic upheaval mode, and try to distill a new order out of the ugly mess. Still, your examples might reflect that it isn't particularly easy to correctly distill a correct and working new order out of an ugly mess. It only gets worse as the turnings turn. The further one gets from the old crisis, the poorer the rigid 1T answers fit a constantly evolving reality.

Originally Posted by salsabob

Also to note - your "destroys the village, in order to save it" is most often attributed to the Viet Nam War -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Tre

which of course was a 1T/2T war. During those times, perhaps the last thing the country needs is an IL pulling us into war (perhaps Korea as well as Nam). Maybe those days are best served by a leader with a different dichotomy - a risk-taking conservative?

Nixon!

If only he hadn’t been so paranoid and dishonest!

Nixon without the paranoid and dishonest elements? Wouldn't that be like a lake without the water?

What structure will the emerging IL ending up tossing away during the coming 4T? BTW, I am one of those who doesn't believe the 4T is here yet, because the 3T structures and mentality still seem very entrenched at this point.

Originally Posted by salsabob

So while your point of view of the IL on the 'front-end' is asinine...

Funny, I don't recall making any such front or back end point wrt indignant liberals. I did, however, set the historic record straight. America did in fact seek a retribution against Germany and Japan during WWII, and in carrying out said revenge utterly destroyed the will of these people to fight anymore. To suggest, as pbower did, that an "indignant liberal"-led America did not exact a horrific revenge on the Axis Powers is to simply re-write history, for the purpose of making liberal today feel better about their past.

Hey, have fun, dude, but please understand that some out here ain't buying what you folks are trying to repackage.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Nixon without the paranoid and dishonest elements? Wouldn't that be like a lake without the water?

Funny how the Democrat, whose campaign slogan was "He kept us out of the war," and then preceded to declare war in 1917, gets a "paranoid and dishonest" pass. Funny, too, how a later Democrat declared "I hate war and I mean to keep us out of this war," soon became known as "Dr. Win-the-war" just a few years later. He, too, gets a big "paranoid and dishonest" pass.

And then, the next Democrat doesn't even bother to "declare war," while sending 50,000 American GIs to die in a "forgotten war" in Korea. No "paranoid and dishonest" charges there either. Finally there is the Democrat who paints his Republican opponent as a unadulterated "paranoid and dishonest" warmonger in some slick TV "daisy" ads, then promptly sends another 50,000 American GIs to die in the faraway rice paddies of Vietnam. And for this, his Republican successor is run out of office for being "paranoid and dishonest."

Hey, you guys are good. I can't wait for my side to learn how easy it is to be so damn wonderfully "paranoid and dishonest."

Originally Posted by zilch

Funny, I don't recall making any such front or back end point wrt indignant liberals. I did, however, set the historic record straight. America did in fact seek a retribution against Germany and Japan during WWII, and in carrying out said revenge utterly destroyed the will of these people to fight anymore. To suggest, as pbower did, that an "indignant liberal"-led America did not exact a horrific revenge on the Axis Powers is to simply re-write history, for the purpose of making liberal today feel better about their past.

Hey, have fun, dude, but please understand that some out here ain't buying what you folks are trying to repackage.

Again, when you talk about "retribution against Germany and Japan" up to the point that "utterly destroyed the will of these people to fight anymore" that is the "front end." To suggest that this is "revenge" as opposed to self-preservation is as ridiculous as applying that label to defending oneself against a mugger.

Once you have reached the point of bringing the opposition to not fighting you any more that's when it moves from self-preservation to something else, the "back end," where one can decide for true revenge or something more honorable/smarter/hopeful. We did do well with that after WW2, particularly contrasted to the aftermath of WW1.

This concept is not that nuance. One can disagree with it, but any one should be able to grasp its basic tenets. Its not rocket science.

Originally Posted by zilch

Funny how the Democrat, whose campaign slogan was "He kept us out of the war," and then preceded to declare war in 1917, gets a "paranoid and dishonest" pass. Funny, too, how a later Democrat declared "I hate war and I mean to keep us out of this war," soon became known as "Dr. Win-the-war" just a few years later. He, too, gets a big "paranoid and dishonest" pass.

And then, the next Democrat doesn't even bother to "declare war," while sending 50,000 American GIs to die in a "forgotten war" in Korea. No "paranoid and dishonest" charges there either. Finally there is the Democrat who paints his Republican opponent as a unadulterated "paranoid and dishonest" warmonger in some slick TV "daisy" ads, then promptly sends another 50,000 American GIs to die in the faraway rice paddies of Vietnam. And for this, his Republican successor is run out of office for being "paranoid and dishonest."

Hey, you guys are good. I can't wait for my side to learn how easy it is to be so damn wonderfully "paranoid and dishonest."

Admittedly, some good points here, but try to think about how the concept of Turnings and the Indignant Liberal might explain some of these possible discrepancies. Such an objective systematic look might even reduce some of your anger a little.

The "paranoid and dishonest" label is more out of frustration than anything else. Think how Nixon would be viewed in history without Watergate. I think he would have otherwise easily been ranked above a lot of others, who usually get high marks, in getting good things done.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Interesting distinction between front end and back ends. I generally see 4Ts as times of pragmatic upheavals. There is a problem that needs to be fixed, such as colonial imperialism, slavery, or fascism. One does what one needs to to fix it, including throwing out a lot of old traditions. That would be the front end. In the back end, when everyone is tired of upheaval, one has to invent the new traditions. One writes constitutions, amends them, or otherwise tries to lock the lessons learned of conflict into a new normal which the conservatives will likely try to defend through the following awakening and crisis.

There is a limit to how long people are willing to put up with chaos and upheaval. I can understand why folks want out of pragmatic upheaval mode, and try to distill a new order out of the ugly mess. Still, your examples might reflect that it isn't particularly easy to correctly distill a correct and working new order out of an ugly mess. It only gets worse as the turnings turn. The further one gets from the old crisis, the poorer the rigid 1T answers fit a constantly evolving reality.

I guess I should just stick with the basic nomenclature, with IL wielding the stick in the 4T but hopefull switching back to offering carrots in the 1T. ;-)

And yes, distilling new orders coming out of the 4T and into the 1T is difficult, but its the outward appearance of the IL’s shedding and regaining of basic principles and motivations that I find so intriguing (and that certain others find so incomprehensible ;-)

Originally Posted by salsabob

Again, when you talk about "retribution against Germany and Japan" up to the point that "utterly destroyed the will of these people to fight anymore" that is the "front end." To suggest that this is "revenge" as opposed to self-preservation is as ridiculous as applying that label to defending oneself against a mugger.

Funny, liberal indignation these days is aimed squarely at "torturers" of the 9/11 muggers. In fact the 9/11 muggers have been esteemed by ILs as kinda like America's Founding Fathers.

Originally Posted by salsabob

Admittedly, some good points here, but try to think about how the concept of Turnings and the Indignant Liberal might explain some of these possible discrepancies. Such an objective systematic look might even reduce some of your anger a little.

Again, I am humored at how easily you dismiss "some good points," simply because you perceive the pointer has misguided reasons (ie., "anger") for making them.

The real kicker for today's indignant liberal is his acute instinct to excuse the obvious "anger" demonstrated by the 9/11 muggers, while at the same time self-righteously condemning the anger displayed by those outraged by the 9/11 muggers.

This odd IL instinct, while I'm tempted to find it puzzling, in conclusion, is very informative about today's liberals. They have little in common with those ILs, for whatever reasons, of yesterday.