well, you could call it a landslide, if by "landslide" you mean "minor tipping of the scales that took place almost everywhere".Originally Posted by Sanford
while it wasn't really a landslide in the traditional sense, it was broad-based enough to hand the GOP total control for a while.
TK
Trollking, I would even take issue with characterizing the GOP victory in the last election as "broad-based." As low as voter turnout was, the margin voting for the GOP was in fact very narrow.
It was not really a vote FOR anything. It was a NON-vote AGAINST the failure of the Democrats to take a stand. There is a very large group of voters, the cultural creatives or "new progressives," that have been disenfranchised by the two parties. Their issues: caring for the global environment, economic fairness on a global scale, world peace and justice, and in general preserving a promise of a better life for our descendants. They constitute somewhere between 30 and 40% of the voters -- more than the evangelical Christians, who in fact share many of these values (though diverge from the new progressives on other issues). Counting the evangelicals, the constituency for a new progressive agenda (except on culture-war issues) constitutes a majority. But it is fiercely opposed by the corporate right, whose campaign contributions influence both parties.
If the Democrats (or the Republicans, but that's a lost cause) take up these issues, and stand against the corporate right, they will win a dominant position for the next 20 years. Their defeat in the last election was the first step in that process. A Democratic victory would have been a bad thing, particularly if voter turnout was high, because it would have been a victory for moderate corporatism.
Sanford, please note the above. I have never said that the Democrats, as they have been constituted in the Third Turning, could dominate the Crisis. As I observe, and as you apparently agree, they, too, are corporatist. But they are at least capable of becoming the Gray Champion party, and I see signs they are beginning to do so. The Republicans cannot do this. Support for the industrial elite is the party's reason for existence, its political purpose going back to the days of Lincoln, and the only principle on which it has unswervingly held true throughout its collective life. Even reformist Republicans like Theodore Roosevelt or Richard Nixon accomplished what they did against the party's general will and to much GOP grumbling. (And both those presidents held office in Awakenings.)
Now, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the Republicans can do a one-eighty and take up these issues. Fine with me if they do; I'll vote Republican myself, then.
But don't hold your breath.
i was using "broad-based" in the geographic sense. far and wide, slightly more voters voted for GOP than for anyone else. which is not a landslide, really, but since the slight margin you speak of happened everywhere at once, it (understandably) gives that illusion.
TK
Brian:
Many on this forum agree that FDR should be considered a "Gray Champion" even though they also characterize FDR as a "corporatist".
Ditto Abraham Lincoln.
I am the one questioning whether the term "corporatist" has any coherent meaning, but clearly many on this forum do not seem to think that there is a contradiction between a party being "corporatist" and being "Gray Champion" material. In fact, if you listen to most people who use the term on this forum, there seems to be a positive correlation, not a negative correlation, between the two.
Among most of those who make use of the term "corporatist", it is an axiom that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a "corporatist", and that the New Deal pushed America towards "corporatism".
You can disagree with those people, Brain, but you cannot deny that this portrayal of FDR is widespread among those concerned with "corporatism".
For one example, we can harken back to the first Google hit on "corporatism":
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=3054
Clearly, the New Deal was the biggest jump forward into corporatism, though this was not fully understood at the time. Many people, both pro and con, misunderstood it as a move towards socialism.2 As is well known, Roosevelt was an empiricist, not a systematic thinker, and many elements of the New Deal that were tried, such as the notorious National Recovery Administration, were rightly discarded. But the fundamental proposition, that government should take responsibility for ensuring the flow of material goods to the people, was rapidly embraced by the American people, which continues to embrace it today whether it admits it or not. When people demand that the government "do something" about a falling stock market, they are playing at capitalism while practicing corporatism.
Given this, why do you (alone?) think there is a contradiction between Gray Championhood and "corporatism".
HINT: Your best answer is to agree with me that the term "corporatism" means different things to different people, even if this gives some support to my contention that "anti-corporatism" is a vague collection of disconnected ill-defined fears about change (the "Wal-Martization of America" indeed!), a witches brew alliance of fringe Left and fringe Right who agree on little else, and not a coherent "movement", and is not even on the radar scopes of most Americans.
Here, even you reveal the problem I am pointing at. If the Republicans were the party of "the industrial elite" back to and including the days of Lincoln, how is it that Lincoln is considered a Gray Champion?
So, to you, Old Abe was NOT a Gray Champion?
It's either that, or agree that the "Gray Champion" party can also be the party of "the industrial elite".
If there can be ONE exception, why not others?
Sanford, I used the term "Wal-Martization" for a reason.
In my part of Wisconsin, there have been some sizable political fights about these huge superstores such as Wal-Mart and Home Depot coming in and putting locally-owned stores out of business. My local grocery store folded due to competition from a Wal-Mart superstore.
Elsewhere in my county, there was a huge fuss about Wal-Mart building yet another superstore that will probably, once again, put at least one mom-and-pop operation out of business once it's completed. In that very conservative Republican town, people had NO SUPERCENTER signs in their yards and turned out in big numbers during the city council meetings. When the vote was taken, it took the mayor to break a tie of the council members (he voted in favor of Wal-Mart). Eventually Wal-Mart will build its supercenter, but the entire process energized a lot of people, and you can bet that they will be paying more attention to their local politics from now on.
Now I'm not posting this to bash Wal-Mart in particular or large superstores in general. My point is that there are small grass-roots activities taking place in this country to oppose what is perceived as the corporatist agenda. Perhaps these activities are taking place under most people's radar screens, and perhaps they are not organized on a national or even state level, but they are happening, and probably in the most unexpected places.
As far as FDR and the "corporatist" New Deal goes -- well, perhaps it has outlived its usefulness. The new Grey Champion will have an entirely new agenda. The world will be a very different place by the time this 4T is over.
Sanford,
I find the corporatist policies of both parties self defeating. The concetration of wealth and power in ever fewer hands merely impoverishes everyone, the financial elite included.
Oddly, the effect of this shared policy is shaping-up to be much like the last Unravelling/Crisis transition. Both parties were corporatist at the time. Was FDR himself a corporatist? Sure. He even tried to govern as one, until it became obvious that it was a failed policy. So as an alternative to Socialism, he chose to save captitalism from its own excesses. Did he plan to do this? Probably not initially.
But the fact is that the efforts of FDR and Truman lead, directly and indirectly, to the labor dominance of the High. It was the first time in US history that the financial elite had suffered a reverse to someone else's benefit. But guess what, they made-out like bandits, too.
Why we should have to repeat this is anyones guess, but apparently it's necessary.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Keep in mind that my main target in recent posts has been Brian's complete confidence that he knows what will happen in the future.
A lot of people portray the GOP and the Democrats as "Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee". I don't go that far, but do argue that their core values overlap significantly.
That being the case, IMHO it is not clear why it is so all-fired OBVIOUS to Brian that the Republicans will not ("CAN NOT!!!") dominate the 4T.
To me, this seems like a big old blind spot.
==
"We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember, my friends, future events such as these will affect you in the future." -Criswell.
An anecdotal observation for sure, but one well worth noting: We are safe from the Ende des Kapitalismus National Socialists for a little while longer...
"And as it became increasingly clear that it was just these elements which formed obstacles to the realization of socialism, the socialists of the Left approached more and more to those of the Right. It was the union of the anticapitalist forces of the Right and of the Left, the fusion of radical and conservative socialism, which drove out from Germany everything that was liberal." --F. A. Hayek The Road to Serfdom (1944)
Seeing L?affaire Lott unfold has reminded me of this Hayek quote. Daniel McCarthy, in a piece called American Groupthink, writes "L?affaire Lott has seen the respectable Right surpass the lunatic Left for political correctness, a fact which is more important in itself than any debate over whether or not Lott is a racist or a liability to the Republican party."
That's not good, folks. Then, reading all this "anticapitalist" crap in these threads, I actually get depressed, sometimes:
Mr. Rush has often said that he has tired of the culture war, and wishes to move on... I guess, when my side, and his, meet in mutual "union" Hayek's nightmare will bear new fruit. His new Road to Serfdom might read as follows:
And as it became increasingly clear that it was just these elements which formed obstacles to the realization of the new world order, the Greens of the Left approached more and more to those of the Right. It was the union of the anticapitalist forces of the Right and of the Left, the fusion of radical and conservative Greens, which drove out from America everything that is remaining liberal.
I don't suppose it will be very pretty.
I tend to agree with Brian that this 4T has to rectify some imbalances, and coprporate power is at the top of the list. In an environment where government sits out the game, corporations are uniquely capable of setting the agenda on every issue, and have the wherewithall to carry the public with them.
In the last 30 years, they found a magic phrase (actually - one word), JOBS. Excuse me, but they are unable to function without a workforce, and only hire those they need, yet they have managed to convince eveyone from Joe Sixpack to Jane Bougelais that any effort to limit them would impact THEIR job.
So what happened? Regulations have been slashed, and oversight agencies underfunded. The tax code has been rewritten of, by and for the corporations and their wealthiest (read ownership majority) stockholders. Now we have a full court press on the government, with CEOs and investment bigshots moving into leadership positions in the executive and legislative branches. The take-over is advancing.
So which party in a position to stop this (i.e. the Republicans or Democrats) has any motivation to do it? The Republicans have been the party of busines for their entire history. Why would that change now? Which leaves the Democrats as the only viable answer, albeit by a whisker. They have to be the champions of anti-corporatism, or there won't be one.
If you accept S&H at all, you have to expect a crisis, and a crisis needs a critical issue. What other issue has the merit of economic justice? None. That makes putting the genie back in the bottle the top 4T priority. Whether it will work is anybody's guess. The details are even less predictable. We're about to find out in the not too distant future, so enjoy the ride!
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Sanford:
The fact that corporatism is the central issue in this Crisis doesn't mean it was the main issue in prior Crises.
It is actually stretching a bit to call FDR a corporatist. He was responsible for including socialist values into our economic/political structure. In many respects, he was an anti-corporatist, although it is arguable that he "saved capitalism" as many believe.
About Lincoln there is less ambiguity. But at that time, the issues were quite different. America was not a fully industrialized country but trying to become one. There was a sharp conflict between the rising capitalist elite and the older planter (or quasi-aristocratic) elite. We faced a question of which type of economy would dominate. Also, we faced a question (tied up with this) of whether America would continue to be a confederation of sovereign states, or a single nation. Capitalism was simply not strong enough at that time to be itself an issue.
David:
I think I know. The problem is globalization. The ability of corporations to expand beyond national boundaries has empowered them to play one national government off against another, and ratchet standards downward. It has hugely increased corporate power worldwide. The balance established in the last Crisis between private profit and the public interest has been upset.Why we should have to repeat this is anyones guess, but apparently it's necessary.
Why should we accept this as a fact? Just because you say so?
Sanford:
The central issues of this Crisis, on the surface, are three: the instability of the global economy, the instability of the global peacekeeping structure, and the danger posed by reckless growth to the global ecosystem. Two of those have already struck us, and the third is approaching fast. Corporate power lies at the root of all three.
Corporate power, and the failure of government to regulate the global economy, is why it is unstable. Corporate power, and the diversion of foreign policy (especially in the U.S., the greatest great power) to the ends of short-term profit, is the chief reason behind the instability of global peace -- including the present danger from terrorism. Corporate power is the chief factor behind failure to take collective action to achieve a sustainable relationship with nature.
Corporate power lies at the root of all the world's civic ills today.
Any effort to solve any of the above-referenced problems -- for example, any effort by the Bush administration to protect Americans from terrorism or to help the ailing economy -- will be futile unless the underlying problem of corporate power is addressed.
You do not have to believe this at this time, of course, self-evident though it be. But it will prove itself true, and in the end you will believe it.
Brian, I happen to agree with much of what you post
..... b u t .....
your posts may strike people as arrogant and presumptive because you state your opinions and beliefs as if they were proven fact. I'd like you to say "I believe that"..... or "In my opinion" or "It seems to me" or "I predict" before making those pronouncements about what lays ahead in the future.
After all, only as this Crisis unfolds will we find out whether you were right or not.
Just a friendly note from one late-wave liberal Boomer to another. :wink:
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
So, in the end I will turn away from the myriad evil spreadsheet-crunching, bottom-line watching, competing corporations and embrace the one all-knowing, all-loving global transnational government regime, eh?
In the end, I will love Big Brother, he that hath repealed the laws of the market, smoothed the economic cycles, and made over the world in sweetness and light...
Maybe after they put a cage of rats on my face...
Wonk:
Sorry. :wink: (I was just fighting fire with fire.)
Sanford:
I didn't say you'd like it. I only said you'd believe it.
[quote="Brian Rush"]Sanford:
Corporate power, and the diversion of foreign policy (especially in the U.S., the greatest great power) to the ends of short-term profit, is the chief reason behind the instability of global peace -- including the present danger from terrorism.
Islam has a long history of hostility to the West.
Corporate power is the chief factor behind failure to take collective action to achieve a sustainable relationship with nature.
Old style industry is filthy. What we need are either cleaner industrial processes, or else materials and/or energy imported from outer space.
Corporate power lies at the root of all the world's civic ills today.
What about the former components of the Soviet Union, which have been trying to build new civic orders from scratch?
Tim:
Islam's hostility to the West has been intermittent, not constant. Without the many legitimate grievances the Muslim world has against the U.S., al-Qaeda would have fewer recruits and less support from Muslim governments, and might even pick a different target. Assuming it existed at all.
Changing from a low-efficiency, high-resource-throughput model of industry to a high-efficiency, low-throughput model would cost money and planning and cut into short-term profits and is therefore opposed by most corporate powers. But it is what we have to do. That would give us cleaner industrial processes, as well as sustainable use of resources. Ultimately, it would also make us all richer, since we would be producing more value or less natural capital.
I wish the former Soviet republics well. They, too, would benefit from a more benign, and less greedy, global civic order.
... is an excellent idea (already doing it, thanks!), but I don't recall where it was on Osama's wish list. Was that before or after "You must all convert to Islam or we will kill you."?
"Corporate power lies at the root
of all the world's civic ills today." --Brian Rush
What corporation does Osama bin Laden work for, I wonder?
Or was he the "forgotten man" felling the "evil" twin towers of "Corporate power" of the global village in New York, last year? Come to think of it, evil is evil, so that little stunt bin Laden pulled would have to make that man kinda like a hero of great great "civic" virtue, in Brian Rush's book of life.
Yeah, just like good old John Brown. Mine eyes have seen the glory!
On all things civic:
Main Entry: civ?ic
Pronunciation: 'si-vik
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin civicus, from civis citizen
Date: circa 1656
: of or relating to a citizen, a city, citizenship, or civil affairs
The CIVITAN CREED
I AM A CIVITAN: as old as life, as young as the rainbow, as endless as time.
MY HANDS do the work of the world and reach out in service to others.
MY EARS hear the cry of children and the call throughout the world for peace, guidance, progress, and unity.
MY MOUTH utters the call to daily duty and speaks prayers in every tongue.
MY HEART beats for every friend, bleeds for every injury to humanity, and throbs with joy at every triumph of truth.
MY SOUL knows no fear but its own unworthiness.
MY HOPE is for a better world through Civitan.
MY MOTTO: builders of good citizenship
MY BELIEF: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
MY PLEDGE: to practice the Golden Rule and to build upon it a better and nobler citizenship.
Like a man trying to push his cart with his team of horses, Mr. Rush does err with his claim of "Corporate power" lying "at the root of all the world's civic ills today." Lack of civics, like most other social "ills" begin in the human heart, and hence are centered on home and hearth, not the halls of "Corporate power."
Corporate entities -- whether they be large or small, private or public, "of the people, by the people, and for the people" or just for the sake of profits -- remain ever beholden to Learned Hand's truth, "This much I think I know--that a society so riven that the spirit of moderation is gone. no court can save; that a society where that spirit flourishes, no court need save; that society which evades its responsibility by thrusting upon the courts the nature of that spirit, that spirit in the end will perish."
Sanford:
I don't know about you, but I feel no particular obligation to fulfill bin Ladin's wish list.I don't recall where it was on Osama's wish list.
The idea is not to please or satisfy him, but to render him, and other terrorist leaders, powerless. We could manage that in respect to Osama personally by killing him, if Bush League would get to it and quit farting around with Saddam, but others would spring up, Hydra-like, to replace him. To win the war on terrorism, we have to damp down the hatred among ordinary third world residents that makes them willing to die for the likes of Osama bin Ladin. That means being nicer, not to him, but to them.
One reason we support tyrants that feed that hatred is to keep control of the massive flows of natural resources necessary to feed our inefficient industries. If our industries were more efficient we would experience less need to do this, and other considerations might weigh more heavily in the balance.
Read "inefficient industries," like stoneage stuff: like coal (not nuclear power), like Yugos (not "choice of vehicles"), like doing without (not innovation and prosperity), like living a life of guilt (not overcoming obstacles).
"Top down" doesn't work, except for the fear and crisismongering elites like Brian Rush. Bottom up works for everybody.
Viva La America!
