Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Evidence We're in a Third--or Fourth--Turning - Page 112







Post#2776 at 07-01-2002 11:05 PM by Jim Blowers [at Virginia joined Aug 2001 #posts 55]
---
07-01-2002, 11:05 PM #2776
Join Date
Aug 2001
Location
Virginia
Posts
55

I too have noticed that article in the Washington Post on the corrosion of trust in our society. I definitely have noticed it, both in my personal life and in the life of this nation (see http://jimvb.home.mindspring.com/blogger.html for details). To me, this is looming as the big issue. I can't find it specifically in TFT, but I believe that S&H have stated that lack of trust in our society is one of the characteristics of a Third Turning and one of the things that eventually lead to the Crisis. I don't think terrorist attacks are going to play much of a part per se. I think the Worldcom and Enron scandals are going to play a much bigger part. The biggest scandal may happen if, as geologists say, we run out of cheap oil in 2010, when oil companies say that it will last much longer than that. That will be when we enter into the Crisis for sure.







Post#2777 at 07-02-2002 12:14 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
07-02-2002, 12:14 AM #2777
Guest

On 2002-07-01 21:05, Jim Blowers wrote:
I too have noticed that article in the Washington Post on the corrosion of trust in our society. I definitely have noticed it, both in my personal life and in the life of this nation (see http://jimvb.home.mindspring.com/blogger.html for details). To me, this is looming as the big issue. I can't find it specifically in TFT, but I believe that S&H have stated that lack of trust in our society is one of the characteristics of a Third Turning and one of the things that eventually lead to the Crisis. I don't think terrorist attacks are going to play much of a part per se. I think the Worldcom and Enron scandals are going to play a much bigger part. The biggest scandal may happen if, as geologists say, we run out of cheap oil in 2010, when oil companies say that it will last much longer than that. That will be when we enter into the Crisis for sure.
Don't forget the Church scandal as well.

Someone made a point earlier about Millies not being able to create culture. That is pushing things a bit far. In the last 4T it was the GI and Lost generations that controlled the music and to a lesser extent the art worlds. The literature of the times was heavily influenced by the Lost. It wasn't
the missionaries that invented jazz, and that is one of the first thing anyone thinks about when you mention the war years...after D-day you think of Big Band. That is certainly the way the surviving GIs think of it. Just ask one. :smile:

So Civics can and do create "culture", it is just of a different nature than that created by the more inner-directed Prophets.







Post#2778 at 07-02-2002 12:34 AM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
07-02-2002, 12:34 AM #2778
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

On 2002-07-01 09:01, Kiff '61 wrote:
On 2002-07-01 00:41, justmom wrote:
I don't post on these forums but, I am intrested deeply about the 4th turning et. al.

It's very intresting that the Al Gor article has been brought up. I mostly inhabit conservative talk news sites. I saw that article too.

Please tell me in a nut shell if you can, what is the mix of posters religious and non religious, and conservative and progressive.
We have quite a variety of political and religious viewpoints here. I would say that as a group T4Ters probably slant more liberal (though it may depend on how you define that term!).
I agree, the 4T forum tilts overalltoward cultural liberalism, breaking about half and half on economics.

But the Right is represented here! :smile:


What is the prevailing thought on the 1st Turning (the next one) will it be a more liberal ie: "one" earth, or earth first or;
a more like the 50's with return to traditional values.

Personally, I don't think the next 1T will be anything like the 1950's.
I'll be content if the next 1T can avoid being like the 1870s, and even more content if the next 1T doesn't glow in the dark.









Post#2779 at 07-02-2002 12:38 AM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
07-02-2002, 12:38 AM #2779
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

On 2002-07-01 16:41, madscientist wrote:


Accordingly, the only way to kill the cycle is to break the natural inclinations of the Boomers who will be the new elders in society during the 4T. It is the elder generation that drives the inclinations of youth. If the Boomers act more like a Hero generation in elderhood, then Millies will compensate by acting more like Prophets.
Good point, but how do you induce the daydreamers to do something like that, and would they ever even want to?







Post#2780 at 07-02-2002 09:26 AM by jds1958xg [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 1,002]
---
07-02-2002, 09:26 AM #2780
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
1,002

More about the corporate world's image and trust meltdown, and it's effect on the overall economy. In a recent poll, nearly 85% of the people polled said we were either still in a recession, or at least that the outlook was 'poor'. Over half are more worried about their own financial futures than before. Reports of economic recovery and increased corporate profits are being taken with a grain of salt, while the stock market is registering it's worst overall performance since World War II - almost three straight years in a bear market. Over a third of those polled expect a lot more companies to be hit by scandal, if not bankruptcy. Hmmm,... Can anyone say 'Great Devaluation'? As in sometime in the next three years, at the outside, at this rate.







Post#2781 at 07-02-2002 10:29 AM by Jim Blowers [at Virginia joined Aug 2001 #posts 55]
---
07-02-2002, 10:29 AM #2781
Join Date
Aug 2001
Location
Virginia
Posts
55

The signs of economic recovery are present. It's just that people don't believe it; they don't trust Wall Street or the corporations. This is most unusual. It is a negative bubble. Sooner or later, people will see real productivity or growth in a corporation not tainted by scandal, the bubble will burst, and stocks will soar, until they reach a level representing about 5% growth since 1999.

There could have political repercussions. I was predicting that Republicans will take over both House and Senate this fall, but if the stock market and consumer pessimism persists into November, Democrats will take over instead, creating a split government. If the draggy market continues into late 2004, Bush will be a one-term president.

But eventually this economy should turn around; the Devaluation, if it occurs, will be later. That is, unless consumer lack of trust and pessimism drags the economy down with it and causes a premature Devaluation.







Post#2782 at 07-02-2002 11:21 AM by Mr. Reed [at Intersection of History joined Jun 2001 #posts 4,376]
---
07-02-2002, 11:21 AM #2782
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Intersection of History
Posts
4,376

http://www.tweney.com/2002/0628trust.html
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20020627.html
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

Back in the 1990s, this news would've generated more excitement than resentment. Not today, it seems. In an era in which societal trust is beginning to implode, this is doomed to failure.
"The urge to dream, and the will to enable it is fundamental to being human and have coincided with what it is to be American." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson
intp '82er







Post#2783 at 07-02-2002 01:43 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
07-02-2002, 01:43 PM #2783
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

The crux of whether we are in 4T or not is whether 9/11 started or coincided with the start of a process in which we radically change our society in fundamental and concrete ways. A 4T in which we merely fight enemies from abroad will not be a true 4T. Those who believe it will be, are those who are convinced that nothing is wrong with our society as it is and our 3T culture and civilization is just fine and is not about to come apart in a Crisis. But I disagree.

American 4Ts have brought radical fundamental changes to our society and its institutions, because people fought to change them during the Crisis. The only exception perhaps goes back to the English cycle and the so-called "Armada Crisis."

An economic downturn in which corporate culture itself is questioned, could be the start of a real 4T. (So could questions about Bush's foreknowledge of 9/11, if it turns up enough dirt that it causes people to advocate fundamental changes in the presidency or the military-industrial complex. Or questions about how our corporate society's greed allowed such lapses in security, if more attacks happen; etc.).

However, I heard a poll yesterday that says people don't want to change any laws regarding corporate behavior; just enforce what we have. This ignores the fact that what laws we had to protect us from corporate misconduct were thrown out in the last 20 years. But it indicates that the people might not yet be ready for the radical change that a 4T mood would generate, if they aren't even willing to support changes in the laws; let alone an end to corporate culture as we know it.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-07-02 11:47 ]</font>







Post#2784 at 07-02-2002 01:51 PM by Tim Walker '56 [at joined Jun 2001 #posts 24]
---
07-02-2002, 01:51 PM #2784
Join Date
Jun 2001
Posts
24

The Culture Wars between Boomer factions suggests that our Crisis will involve domestic conflict. (I hope to God that it doesn't escalate to civil war). In the meantime we may have to fend off others in whose minds we are the enemy.







Post#2785 at 07-02-2002 01:55 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
07-02-2002, 01:55 PM #2785
Guest

On 2002-07-02 11:43, Eric A Meece wrote:
The crux of whether we are in 4T or not is whether 9/11 started or coincided with the start of a process in which we radically change our society in fundamental and concrete ways. A 4T in which we merely fight enemies from abroad will not be a true 4T. Those who believe it will be, are those who are convinced that nothing is wrong with our society as it is and our 3T culture and civilization is just fine and is not about to come apart in a Crisis. But I disagree.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-07-02 11:47 ]</font>
A number of us who believe that the 4T is here are not satisfied with the status quo AT ALL. I for one know that our society needs to make fundamental changes in the gap between rich and poor, our use of non-renewable resources, and the like.

The 911 attacks and the continuing crisis in the Middle East are symptoms of some of the issues that may well come to the fore during the 4T. For example, our energy dependence on Middle Eastern oil to support our SUV habit very definitely affects our relations in the Middle East and our propping up of regimes such as Saudi Arabia's. The huge gap between American lifestyles (especially as portrayed on TV and movies) and the existence of the Third World is a major factor fueling the hatred of many in the Middle East of America.

I think when the 4T hits (if it hasn't yet), it will be world-wide, not just a little American experience. The last 4T became world-wide thanks to WWII and the huge changes afterwards. This one will be even more so, so it really doesn't matter if Americans are still watching Survivor.







Post#2786 at 07-02-2002 02:32 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
07-02-2002, 02:32 PM #2786
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Your points make sense to me, Jenny.

I think it depends on whether 9/11 and the current mess in Israel become a clash with the Middle East; I'm not sure it will and it certainly hasn't yet. But if it does, it will be another challenge to our rich and oil-drenched way of life.

If the ecological challenge heats up severely at the same time Middle Easterners attack us again and disrupt our oil supply, that could be the start of 4T in the scenario you suggest.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-07-02 12:34 ]</font>







Post#2787 at 07-02-2002 02:32 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
07-02-2002, 02:32 PM #2787
Guest

[quote]
On 2002-07-02 11:55, Jenny Genser wrote:
A number of us who believe that the 4T is here are not satisfied with the status quo AT ALL. I for one know that our society needs to make fundamental changes in the gap between rich and poor, our use of non-renewable resources, and the like.

The 911 attacks and the continuing crisis in the Middle East are symptoms of some of the issues that may well come to the fore during the 4T. For example, our energy dependence on Middle Eastern oil to support our SUV habit very definitely affects our relations in the Middle East and our propping up of regimes such as Saudi Arabia's. The huge gap between American lifestyles (especially as portrayed on TV and movies) and the existence of the Third World is a major factor fueling the hatred of many in the Middle East of America.

I think when the 4T hits (if it hasn't yet), it will be world-wide, not just a little American experience. The last 4T became world-wide thanks to WWII and the huge changes afterwards. This one will be even more so, so it really doesn't matter if Americans are still watching Survivor.
Agreed. This is why I drive a Mazda.
:wink:








Post#2788 at 07-02-2002 06:31 PM by Rain Man [at Bendigo, Australia joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,303]
---
07-02-2002, 06:31 PM #2788
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Bendigo, Australia
Posts
1,303

On 2002-07-02 08:29, Jim Blowers wrote:
But eventually this economy should turn around; the Devaluation, if it occurs, will be later. That is, unless consumer lack of trust and pessimism drags the economy down with it and causes a premature Devaluation.
Consumer spending is a major factor in the economy, consumer sentiment affects consumer spending. If people are feeling badly about the economy they will spend less money, hampering economic growth. The more optsimtic consumer sentiment in Australia has kept us out of recession.

_________________
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tristan Jones on 2002-07-02 16:32 ]</font>







Post#2789 at 07-02-2002 06:59 PM by Max [at Left Coast joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,038]
---
07-02-2002, 06:59 PM #2789
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Left Coast
Posts
1,038

About 8 years ago I saw a story on TV; a group of young engineers had totally reinvented the combustion engine, put it in a car and found that it ran over 100 miles on a gallon of gas. They said they didn't particularly care who bought the invention, just that someone would.
My husband and I's first reaction was that it would be bought by an oil co. and permanently shelved.
I don't mean to slam 'big oil' per se, but, I want to point out the lies we live with everyday as a society.

My first post was asking about the next 1T. because I've done a TON of thinking on this since 911. S&H say society will emerge new, with the problems of the 3T solved. So my focus has been on what are today's problems, and how would they be solved. I have tried to be totally objective playing devils advocate as much as possible. I see todays problems, and I know how I would fix them. I just don't know how *you* would fix them. And most importantly what would todays problems LOOK like were they fixed.

I think if you can figure that out, you might have a understanding on this 4T. what we are in for, and what the 4T will be like, mild or sever.

See, I don't think you can 'solve' a problem if you don't face truth.If you deal with the wrong facts how can you ever come to a solution. S&H say the people will see an overall problem, lumping all of societal ills into one big problem. It's hard for me to wrap my brain around that and see everything under one umbrella although I work the problem often, and believe I'm inching closer.

But, lets talk about oil or lack of it in the future.See this is where that combustion engine comes into the picture. We have an answer for the problem, but, we aren't dealing with truth. Did YOU know that engine exists? Why isn't every car on the road using one? I think in the next 1T everyone WILL have this engine or a next generation of it.

I think about the PC police. PC'ness is separating everyone into little tiny isolated groups. Example today Washington court ruled the word "Oriental" as offensive and said "Asian" should be used instead.
So I ask, how are we going to be united once again with everyone in agreement. Today it seems you'd have to have half the population turn up dead tomorrow.

It's things like this "oriental" word, as much as the stock market scandals, that make me agree the 4T will be an American event.
But, I can't rule out the Middle East as I believe our presence there and their presence here will undoubtedly play a huge role.

So as to whether or not in a 4T, not yet, we are still bickering about "oriental" vs. "asian".

The way I see it, we attack 'over there' causing a global war 4T, sleeper cells attack here causing an American event 4T.

Please forgive me for my what seem to be random musings after a re-read, but, I try to talk to my husband about this, he just doesn't understand. I hope some of you do, so I can get some feedback.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: justmom on 2002-07-02 17:00 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: justmom on 2002-07-02 17:01 ]</font>







Post#2790 at 07-02-2002 10:34 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
07-02-2002, 10:34 PM #2790
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

On 2002-07-02 09:21, madscientist wrote:
http://www.tweney.com/2002/0628trust.html
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20020627.html
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

Back in the 1990s, this news would've generated more excitement than resentment. Not today, it seems. In an era in which societal trust is beginning to implode, this is doomed to failure.
This is one Xer who NEVER had that much trust in the corporations to begin with (which may surprise some on this board who don't understand conservatives), and I hated this sort of idea even then.

There is in line with the constant effort by movie/music industry lobbyists to require crippling limitations to be built into computers. Their goal is in essence to reduce the PC to a passive platform for playing pre-set content.

There has been a quiet but growing bubble of irritation at the rampant buying and selling of personal information, and the venal way the rules are manipulated, throughout the 90s. It may come boiling over now, it may not be time yet.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-07-02 20:38 ]</font>







Post#2791 at 07-03-2002 07:19 AM by Rain Man [at Bendigo, Australia joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,303]
---
07-03-2002, 07:19 AM #2791
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Bendigo, Australia
Posts
1,303

Interesting article that seems to reflect on the public mood of the times.


DYNASTIES!

by KEVIN PHILLIPS

Maybe it's time for a new set of Fourth of July orations. Only at
first blush is there silliness to the idea of the United States--the
nation of the Minutemen, John and Samuel Adams and Thomas
Jefferson--becoming a hereditary economic aristocracy. When you think
about it, there is evidence for serious concern.

More than a decade ago, the United States passed France to have the
highest inequality ratios of any major Western nation. More and more
of the country's richest clans have been setting up family offices,
captive trust companies and other devices to manage and entrench their
swelling fortunes. The elimination of the inheritance tax being sought
by the Bush Administration will only make that entrenchment easier.

Politically, we already have a dynasty at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:
the first son ever to take the presidency just eight years after it
was held by his father, with the same party label. This dynasticism
also has its economic side: both Bushes, p?re et fils, having been
closely involved with the rise of Enron, another first for a
presidential family, more on which shortly.

If we lack an official House of Lords, there are Bushes, Tafts,
Simons, Rockefellers, Gores, Kennedys and Bayhs out to create a
kindred phenomenon. Laura Bush is the only wife of a 1996 or 2000
major-party presidential nominee who has not yet entertained seeking a
US Senate seat in her own right. The duchesses of Clinton, Dole and
Gore have already considered (or acted).

A soft, blurry kind of cultural corruption has all but muted
discussion. Dynasty is no longer a bad word, and in the wake of this
semantic revision, the inheritance tax supported by Presidents from
Lincoln to FDR has been renamed the "death tax" by George II and may
be heading toward extinction. Small-business men from Maine to San
Diego are already dreaming of founding personal dynasties, built on
lobsters-by-mail or Buick dealerships.

Progressive taxation--only a memory for most--died in the 1980s as
regressive FICA taxes replaced income levies as the heaviest tax paid
by a majority of American families. The First Amendment to the US
Constitution, in turn, is not far from being twisted by the courts to
include fat-cat political donations within the protection of free
speech. Cynics might suggest that George Orwell set his book 1984 two
decades too early.

But democracy is being eroded more by money and its power than by
skilled semantics. For want of insights and data often unobtainable
from the corporate media, the public opinion vital to US democracy has
trouble remaining vigorous and informed. Many politicians are
themselves part of the national economic elite, and others depend on
that elite for campaign funding. History tells us that America
overcame kindred problems in the Progressive era a century ago. The
national will to do so again, however, is hardly clear.

The menace of economic and political dynastization is that it flies
under the radar of the Americans who grew up believing that the
democratic values of World War II and Franklin D. Roosevelt, carried
by another leadership generation into the 1960s, would last forever.
Instead, the 1980s and '90s ambulanced many of those values to an
ideological emergency ward. But much of the liberal and progressive
community--caught up in older micro-issues--has found the changing
?ber-philosophy difficult to grasp.

A similar thing happened in the mid-to-late-nineteenth century, when
aging Jeffersonians and Jacksonians remained lulled by the egalitarian
implant of those earlier days, as well as by the post-1783 elimination
of the British system of entail and primogeniture, which kept estates
intact at death. Finally, in the 1880s, it became clear that the
advent of large corporations, enjoying a long legal existence and
constitutional rights equivalent to persons, had provided the
framework for the rise of a new aristocracy. Hundred-year-old reforms
and shibboleths had become irrelevant.

By this point, the average American had stopped believing the old
Fourth of July speeches about how the forefathers had anticipated
every danger. From Maine to California, citizens saw railroads taking
control of state politics. Muckraking journalists began to employ a
new descriptive term: plutocracy. As the trusts and monopolies
flourished while America's largest fortunes grew tenfold and
twentyfold between 1861 and 1901 thanks to stock values, it became
clear that some critical safeguards were missing. Luckily, the need to
bridle railroads, trusts and monopolies, and to tax the incomes and
inheritances of the rich, voiced with increasing clarity by Theodore
Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives, brought significant
results by 1914. FDR added further reforms during the New Deal years.

As of 2002, alas, old New Deal memories and 60 cents will get you a
candy bar. The transformation of the US economy and its supporting
politics since the 1960s has been staggering; and especially so since
the 1980s, with the growth of financialization, wealth concentration,
economic elitism and dynastization. Millionaires' income tax rates
dropped so fast in the 1980s, for example, while those of people in
the middle rose with FICA increases, that in 1985 the two almost met.

Back in 1937, an economics writer named Ferdinand Lundberg wrote about
how "America's Sixty Families" (and another hundred lesser clans)
owned a huge chunk of US business through their corporate stock
holdings. Six decades later, the current "overclass" probably begins
with the largely overlapping quarter-million "deca-millionaires" ($10
million and up) and the quarter-million Americans with incomes in
excess of $1 million a year. But for sticklers, the 2000 equivalent of
the rich families of 1937 could be the roughly 5,000 clans having
assets of $100 million or more.

Today, following the havoc of the biggest two-year major market
debacle since 1929, many of the Internet fortunes are gone, while the
established rich are very much with us and, by and large, sleeker than
ever. This was also true in 1937, parenthetically, when researcher
Lundberg's discourse paid hardly any attention to the nouveau-riche
aviation, radio, motion picture and electric gadget fortunes of the
Roaring Twenties. Most had shriveled or vanished between 1929 and
1932. The old money was back on top.

So it is again, although a third of the tech billionaires of 1999 have
kept billionaire status, a much better ratio than in 1929-32.
Nevertheless, what is striking in the current lists is the
entrenchment of established families through the good offices of the
Dow Jones and the S&P 500. The top 1 percent of Americans own about 40
percent of the individually owned exchange-traded stock in the United
States, and own an even higher ratio of other financial and corporate
instruments.

The median US family, depending on the calculus, has only $6,000 or
$9,000 of stock, a benefit overshadowed during the 1990s because its
debt level rose by a good deal more. The financialization of America
since the 1980s--by which I mean the shift of onetime savings deposits
into mutual funds, the focus on financial instruments, the
giantization of the financial industry and the galloping preoccupation
of corporate CEOs with stock options instead of production lines--has
been a major force for economic polarization. This is because of its
disproportionate favoritism to the top income and wealth brackets. The
never-ending stream of 1980s and '90s bailouts of banks, S&Ls, hedge
funds, foreign currencies and (arguably) stock markets by the Federal
Reserve has been another prop.

The upper-tier hogging of the economic benefits of the 1990s can be
approached from a number of directions, but hardly anyone controverts
that the top 1 percent made out like bandits. The New York Times, for
example, reported that 90 percent of the income gain going to the top
fifth of Americans went to the top 1 percent, who are only a twentieth
of that top fifth. Some scholars bluntly contend that attention should
focus on the top one-tenth of 1 percent, because these are the raw
capitalists and money-handlers, not the high-salaried doctors, lawyers
and Cadillac dealers.

In 1935, Franklin Roosevelt proclaimed that "the transmission from
generation to generation of vast fortunes by will, inheritance or gift
is not consistent with the ideals and sentiments of the American
people," but politics became friendlier to wealth in the 1960s and
'70s, and positively effusive in its courtship during the 1980s and
'90s. Over the past two decades, the same soaring costs of seeking
office that drove middle-class office-seekers to sell their souls to
big contributors also made dynastic heirs appealing to political
parties that were looking for self-funding nominees or those whose
famous names gave them a built-in fundraising edge. Two billionaires,
Ross Perot and Donald Trump, actually sought the presidency or talked
about it during the 1990s.

The number of US senators with serious multimillion-dollar fortunes,
in the meantime, has begun to approach the high set back in the early
1900s, when senators were appointed by state legislatures to whom
money spoke easily and powerfully. This ended in 1913, when the
Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution provided for popular
election of senators, although the submergence of politics in today's
money culture has accomplished somewhat the same thing, despite
popular election.

As for Presidents, nineteenth- and twentieth-century White House
service was not much of a pathway to getting rich. Most had government
pensions and some other income, but few who didn't come to Washington
rich left that way unless they inherited. What seems to have happened
over the past twenty years, however, is that several
Presidents--George H.W. Bush and the Hamptons-craving Bill
Clinton--have decided to swim with the money culture. While Clinton
was governor of Arkansas, wife Hillary held a number of corporate
directorships. Now Clinton's post-White House speechmaking and
deal-seeking looks perfectly normal in an ethically loose sort of way.

The first Bush Administration probably represents the critical
transition, both in the grabby behavior of family members and in the
gravitation of top officeholders toward political investment banking,
scarcely camouflaged lobbying and defense contract involvement. These
practices, indeed, were vaguely reminiscent of the Whig grandees who
ruled eighteenth-century England under the first George I and the
first George II. One even gets the sense that the Bushes and their
entourage came to see this kind of profiteering as their due, much
like the families and associates of Walpole, Pelham and Newcastle.

George H.W. Bush's father and grandfather, investment bankers at old
white-shoe firms, both had high reputations, but erosion soon set in.
Even as the senior Bush was seeking a second term in 1992, the
newspapers buzzed with the financial and deal-making escapades of his
brothers and sons.

The most interesting Bush family involvement is with Enron. Over the
twentieth-century emergence of modern government ethics, no
presidential family has had a parallel relationship. As a senator,
Lyndon Johnson buddied with Texas companies like Brown & Root, but its
fingerprints on his presidency weren't all that notable. Georgia's
Jimmy Carter was close to his home-state corporate giant, Coca-Cola,
and Richard Nixon brought the Pepsi-Cola account to his law firm
during the 1960s.

Episode by episode, none of the Bushes' Enron involvement seems to be
illegal. Before 2000-01, moreover, the ties weren't overwhelming in
any one national administration. However, the only way that a
chronicler can seriously weigh the Enron-Bush tie is by a yardstick
the American press has never really employed: the unseemliness of a
sixteen- or seventeen-year interaction by the members of an American
political dynasty in promoting and being rewarded by a single US
corporation based in its home state.

Enron was organized in 1985, and within a year or two, Vice President
Bush was chairing the Reagan Administration's energy deregulation task
force and his son George W., through one of his succession of minor
energy companies, had an oil-well deal with Enron Oil & Gas. The first
Bush Administration saw passage of the Energy Policy Act of 1992,
which obliged utility companies to transmit energy shipped by Enron
and other marketers, while the Bush-appointed Commodity Futures
Trading Commission created a legal exemption allowing Enron to begin
trading energy derivatives. Enron chief Ken Lay, one of Bush Senior's
top election contributors, was made chair of the President's Export
Council.

Several years later, when George W. became governor of Texas, Lay
asked him to receive visiting dignitaries from places Enron hoped to
do business with, and by the time Bush got to the White House, Enron
was his biggest contributor. Former Enron officials, advisers and
consultants wound up getting several dozen positions in the new
Administration, including White House economic adviser, Secretary of
the Army and US Trade Representative. These were important to Enron on
issues ranging from energy policy to its ambition to open up foreign
markets by bringing exports of energy and water services under the WTO
trade framework.

Had Bush tried to bail out Enron in November or December of 2001, his
personal and dynastic ties to the company would have come under
intense scrutiny. Without that bailout, most of the Washington press
corps has been content to leave alone the much larger story--the
apparent seventeen-year connection between the Bush dynasty and Enron.

Even without such information, it seems clear, counting campaign
contributions, consultancies, joint investments, deals, presidential
library and inaugural contributions, speech fees and the like, that
the Bush family and entourage collected some $8 million to $10 million
from Enron over the years, which is more than changed hands in
Harding's Teapot Dome scandal. Depending on some still-unclear
relationships, it could be as high as $25 million.

Obviously, this sort of dynastic financial outreach is not confined to
Republicans. When Bill Clinton left the White House in a glare of
unfavorable publicity over his last-minute pardons, especially that of
fugitive financier Marc Rich, some of the focus was on money paid to
or arrangements made by his wife's two brothers. Nor is it confined to
Presidents. Texas Senator Phil Gramm and his wife, Wendy, got
themselves referred to in Barron's Financial Weekly as "Mr. and Mrs.
Enron" for his legislative work on the company's behalf at the same
time that she was taking home money and company stock as an Enron
director.

Because the dynastic aspect of American wealth and politics has been
growing much faster than public (and press) appreciation of its
ballooning significance, much of this record has received little
attention. The neglect, however, is something that American democracy
cannot afford. If Americans still believe in what Franklin Roosevelt
said back in 1935 about the unacceptability of inherited wealth and
power--and frankly, even if few have thought about it--a whole new
political, ethical and economic agenda calls out for immediate and
vocal embrace.

It's easy to limn broad outlines--further reform of campaign finance
(perhaps including a constitutional amendment), federal tax changes,
maintenance of the federal inheritance tax (certainly on estates over
$3 million or so) and regulatory overhauls to curb the widespread
corporate abuses pushed into the spotlight by Enron, Tyco and the
accounting and brokerage firms. Still, a century ago, and then again
in the early 1930s, the critical impetus for Americans' insistence on
reform came from stock-market crashes and deep economic downturns. In
2002, we have had the first but not yet the second--and since 9/11,
antiterrorism has been a rallying point, with patriotism offered to
the electorate in lieu of economic concern.

As for economic and political dynastization, the United States is not
the first republic to tilt in this direction. Rome did, and in the
eighteenth century even the once proudly middle-class Dutch Republic
let many of its offices become hereditary. Let's hope Americans do not
also allow political and economic inheritance to displace democracy.
"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion"

L. Ron Hubbard







Post#2792 at 07-03-2002 09:13 AM by jds1958xg [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 1,002]
---
07-03-2002, 09:13 AM #2792
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
1,002

Yet more evidence that America is evolving into an Empire. Will this 4T see us crown an Emperor? And I was going to talk about the nearly 40% drop in the Stock Market's overall dollar value over the last 27 months, along with the Dow's decline of nearly 2000 points in the last three. I guess that one big question the 4T may answer is whether Alfredo Valladao's prediction that the American Empire will be global in scope will pan out, or will the American Empire end up becoming yet another regional one, perhaps dominating the Western Hemisphere, the adjacent oceans, and the other four main English-speaking nations of the Old World?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-07-03 07:16 ]</font>







Post#2793 at 07-03-2002 09:22 AM by Ricercar71 [at joined Jul 2001 #posts 1,038]
---
07-03-2002, 09:22 AM #2793
Join Date
Jul 2001
Posts
1,038

Capitalism is obviously unevenly distributed, and hence prosperity.







Post#2794 at 07-03-2002 02:42 PM by Max [at Left Coast joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,038]
---
07-03-2002, 02:42 PM #2794
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Left Coast
Posts
1,038

OMG! That 'Dynasties' article is so replete with lies, strawmen, spin and political posturing I want to scream.
But, I won't.
I will however point out that this is exactly the type of thing I attempted to address in my previous post.
To wit; how can we solve our problems if we don't deal with truth?
X'rs, I am one of you, but, dudes and dudettes, the pendulum has swung Left already, it's coming back to center and soon to be swinging Right.
I read your posts and wonder did we even read the same book????







Post#2795 at 07-03-2002 02:54 PM by Neisha '67 [at joined Jul 2001 #posts 2,227]
---
07-03-2002, 02:54 PM #2795
Join Date
Jul 2001
Posts
2,227

justmom, in what way do you think the pendulum has swung left and in what way do you think it will swing right?

I think the pendulum hasn't swung so much left or right, but rather from community values toward individual values and, most likely, back toward more community values.

In the last 3T, we had more or less laissez faire capitalism and a smallish federal government. During the 4T we went towards more federal social policy, and a larger and more activist federal government. Which is left and which is right?







Post#2796 at 07-03-2002 03:34 PM by monoghan [at Ohio joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,189]
---
07-03-2002, 03:34 PM #2796
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Ohio
Posts
1,189

jds1958,

More evidence for your Empire trend.

Americans look to the president for a good economy and for security. That may have been the case in the past, but Clinton seemed to play to that theme very strongly. Not his party or his policies, but the person of the president was responsible for the good times.

With the Bush doctrine of preemption of threats, will we look to the person of the President to keep us secure?

If it becomes an empire, it must be global or at least anywhere modern commercial trade takes place. If a beduin based society rejects the modern world (and has been stripped of its oil) then the Empire could cordon off a preserve for it. Anything less would threaten the functioning of the Empire. See Bush doctrine above.

I'm not sure about this trend, but better an American Empire over any of the other contenders. (Particularly, as you've noted elsewhere, for the protection of individual rights that such an empire would maintain.)







Post#2797 at 07-03-2002 03:58 PM by Evan Anderson [at joined Mar 2002 #posts 400]
---
07-03-2002, 03:58 PM #2797
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
400

On 2002-07-03 07:13, jds1958xg wrote:
the nearly 40% drop in the Stock Market's overall dollar value over the last 27 months
... corresponds with roughly a 40% drop in the disparity between rich and poor in the U.S., as most of the rich's wealth is in stocks, and little to none of the poor's wealth is.







Post#2798 at 07-03-2002 05:04 PM by Max [at Left Coast joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,038]
---
07-03-2002, 05:04 PM #2798
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Left Coast
Posts
1,038

Neisha, I'm trying to figure out exactly what you mean by your question. "In what way have we swung Left?"
I mean social policies (of the Left), have become law, and it's causing dis-order. We need to swing right again.

But it gets really tricky because, the definition of Left (Democrat) and Right (Conservative) are in a state of shift and change. For example Kennedy was a BIG proponent of tax cuts. So much so the Republicans last election cycle used some of his speaches in their campain commercials.

What do I mean about the Left polices causing dis-order? Wow! Where to start?
I feel as if I've walked into a bed of hot lava. Help!

I've thought about this for a little while and I guess the best I can do is to give one hopefully non-threatening example.
The Arizona wildfires will be that example.
As per the belief of a small yet very active and vocal group. Trees provide clean air, places for birds to live, they clean up environmental toxins. Trees are good. Therefore we should protect these good trees.
Clearcutting is very bad, it destroyes the trees. If clearcutting is very bad, cutting down one tree isn't 'good'. These people have got together and pushed through a law that on the surface seems to make sense, no?
The law is, "No cutting down trees".

Well, the trees weren't cut down, no underbrush fires have been allowed, and now we have a terrible inferno on our hands. The underbrush has built up for years, giving fuel to the fire, and the trees, so close together are adding to that fuel.

Originally this was a Left policy, now we see how it has caused dis-order. The better policy would be to maintain the forests, allowing for some cutting, some old growth preservation, some burning of underbrush, some planting and some removal/transplanting.

What we are left with now, is NO trees. And should there be an el Nino year of rain coming we are in for a terrible problem of mudfloes.

I predict after this, there will be a re-centering on some of these forest polices. Would you agree, something should be changed, with the forestry policy? Or would you now suggest that we background check all firefighters? (Since it was a firefighter who started one of them.)

rhetorical questions, all.

Then there are so many more examples of the left-ward
pendulum swing. Immigration, attitudes toward children...on and on...

You say you see it more toward community values and individual values more than left and right. I believe that community and individual values aren't neccessarily the opposite of one another. They weren't in the 1950's.-unless I'm not understanding you.Do you mean the empowerment of the community vs. the empowerment of the individual?
Even then I'm not sure what you mean, because some people today believe we are as
a society totally focused on the individual,
'it's all about me', and some people are con-
vinced the government is WAY too intrusive.

I keep going back to " The problems during the unraveling will be solved" O.K, HOW.
It's driving me crazy.

_________________
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." - J.F.K.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: justmom on 2002-07-03 15:05 ]</font>







Post#2799 at 07-03-2002 05:35 PM by Neisha '67 [at joined Jul 2001 #posts 2,227]
---
07-03-2002, 05:35 PM #2799
Join Date
Jul 2001
Posts
2,227

I don't know, justmom, I live in the Northwest and people still seem to be cutting down trees here. And clear cutting.

I'm just trying to figure out what specifically you mean by "left" and "right" as those words have become fairly imprecise. Going back to the 1920s and into the 1930s and 1940s, I don't really see a shift from "left" to "right" during that period of time. What I see is a shift from lots of self-indulgent behavior and a weak, unintrusive federal government to a more serious-minded culture and a strong, activist, and much larger federal government. If you want to use the terms "left" and "right," many would say that, in terms of economic policy at the very least, we shifted from "right" (laissez faire) to "left" (pump-priming, quasi-socialist). So . . .

While the 1990s into the 2010s won't look quite like the last 3T into 4T (any more than the 2030s will resemble the 1950s or the 1870s), there will likely be a shift away from self-indulgent behavior and "self-actualizing" (individual values), towards a focus on things "larger than ourselves" (community values). (To borrow a few cliches.) But, I don't see necessarily that this is going to be a shift to the "right," especially given the the simmering anti-corporate sentiment that seems to be bubbling up. We'll see, I guess. What you can count on is that, whenever we are in a position to know more about what's coming, things will be pretty unpleasant.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Neisha '67 on 2002-07-03 15:40 ]</font>







Post#2800 at 07-03-2002 05:38 PM by Neisha '67 [at joined Jul 2001 #posts 2,227]
---
07-03-2002, 05:38 PM #2800
Join Date
Jul 2001
Posts
2,227

A good critique of what happened to individualism in the 1950s is "The Organization Man."
-----------------------------------------