Originally Posted by bubba

I don?t know why I mess with this discussion group. The vast majority of the posters here are completely incapable of analyzing anything with out letting their normative views color the analysis so much that rather than a reasonable discussion of facts all we are left with is spin.

I wouldn't quite say that. There are a few posters who have very vocal opinions and use the forum to push their own views. However, even they sometimes come up with really good insights about generations and trends. However, I agree with you -- I do get sick of the invective thrown at those who disagree with the poster's views on, say, the wisdom of invading Iraq.

Whether, one loves or hates Bush has nothing to do with whether evidence indicates we are entering a fourth turning. The issue is whether he and the rest of the nation are behaving in a manner that is consistent with the change in mood the authors predicted would occur. However, it seems all most of the posters here are capable of doing is spinning events in such a way that they can argue that the fourth turning will set the stage for the ushering in of a new era will enshrine their normative preferences.

(snip)

Now, based on the author?s timetable this seems a bit premature. However, I also remember a line from the book The Fourth Turning, in which that author spoke about suppose a boomer wins the presidency early in a three way shouting match the turning could arrive early. We certainly had a presidency that was based on a three way shouting match and one hell of an external stimulus that could have set the fire for the turning a few years too early. Will this really matter in the long run? Will it generate an abbreviated hero generation and an elongated artist generation? I would be interested to see what others think of this.

In some other threads, there was a lot of discussion about whether this 4T was early or not. Where I stand is among the camp that this 4T is right on time -- that for whatever reasons, turnings (and generations) are shorter now then they were back in the Revolutionary cycle. If you compare the ages of the first wave of Elder generation (Lost in 1946, GI in 1964, Silent in 1984, and Boomer in 2002), Midlife generation (GI, Silent, Boomer, and X), Young Adult generation (Silent, Boomer, X, Millie), and Child generation (Boomer, X, Millie, and New Artist) at the start of the high in 1946, the awakening in 1964, the unravelling in 1984, and the crisis in 2002, you will notice that the age distribution is very similar. That implies that if this crisis is early, so was were the previous turnings.

You had an 17-year Crisis (1929-1945), an 18-year High (1946-1963), a 20-year Awakening (1964-1983), and assuming a 9/11 4T catalyst, an 18-year Unravelling (1984-2001). If you accept the theory that generations and turnings are now 18 years, 9/11 came right on schedule to spark off the latest Crisis.

The problem is that it doesn't fit in too well with the original "phase of life" theory posited in Generations. For example, many Silents (the youngest of whom just turned 60) are very active in national life and it's while its improbable, its not impossible to imagine a Silent president (if Bush got cancer, say, or if he loses the 2004 election to a Gephardt or Lieberman). Heck, we still have GIs on the Supreme Court. With shorter generations, you simply have more of them occupying the adult scene at any given time.

Anyway, just a few responses to your thoughtful post.

Originally Posted by cbailey

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Coloring the analysis and evidence to the contrary aside, I have concluded that this "unpleasant Stalinesque images" stuff, so prevalent in these threads, has it's roots deeply seated in the notion of "moral relativism": the view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them.

Thus, when Bubba held court, while dropping bombs and sending U.S. troops all over the world, all was well. But now that Dubya does it, even in the aftermath of 9.11, he suddenly invokes "unpleasant Stalinesque images."

Oh sure, you might claim that you are more concerned about civil liberties at home being trounced on. But the Clinton's blatant use of the FBI, in the travel office firings and Filegate, the senseless killing of women and children at Waco, and the ease by which a sitting president lied straightface to the American people, a federal grand jury, and a federal judge belies your supposed fears.

You accepted all of this stuff when Clinton held court, but now that a Republican holds the reigns of power, "unpleasant Stalinesque images" are just around the corner.

You liberals are just hypocrites, plain and simple. Your supposed "ethical truths" are known only to you, and your ever shrinking group. Amd have no basis whatsoever in fact or reality.

stuff a sock init lamb.

Truth hurts, eh? :wink:

p.s. For such an anti-war gal, you sure are sounding awfully militant these days. Go figure, huh? I can piss ya off... but Saddam Hussein can't.

Originally Posted by bubba

Speaking just for myself the name [Homeland Security] conjures up unpleasant Stalinesque images...

Ah life in Stalin's America, circa 2003:

Chambers said that the man did have a permit to "exercise his rights" of free speech, but the permit was for an area closer to the Washington Monument, not in Constitution Gardens.

In a speech Monday, Daschle, of South Dakota, said he was "saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war."

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Daschle's remarks were inconsistent given past statements Daschle had made about the inevitability of using force and about "not politicizing the rhetoric."

Folks, I had no idea Stalin treated the Russians this badly. Why, it must've been just horrible back then.

Duplicate post deleted

Bubba made a thoughtful post. However, his belief that people can analyze situations without what he and others might consider "partisan" viewpoints, is impossible. There are no such viewpoints. He is assuming that people can "put on hold" what they actually think or know about the truth of what is really going on. But this won't happen. Also, the crisis itself will in fact consist of partisan fights. If you don't understand these, you won't understand the crisis or what it's about.

It turns out that all the things bubba thinks are happening so far are in fact what the right-wing and the corporatist power elite hoped would happen. So, attacks have occured and things are tightening up in a way that stifles a wise course of action in this country. We are going to war, and cracking down on dissent, and noone complains; bubba says (although the buggest demonstrations in world history have occured). So a "non-partisan" analysis like what bubba has made, means that the partisan right-wing is calling the shots, and that this is what a fourth turning is.

I don't know if this passive acceptance of this right-wing agenda will continue through a real crisis.

History has shown so far just the opposite. A crisis has come first because of economic problems and conflicts. This gives rise to (or enhances already-existing) movements for social and political change. This in turn has been followed by major wars which were generated by the previous two factors, and which were fought in a total and uncompromising fashion.

What has happened so far, if this is the fourth turning, is quite different. An economic downturn or conflict has begun, but it has continued only because of the attack which followed quickly from outside our borders, which had nothing to do with the economic downturn. No political movement has grown in response to this downturn or to any other social conflict. Instead, the attack has been followed by a total war declared against an undefined and endless array of enemies, with no end in sight. Such a war would seem typically 4th turn. However, what in the past occured is that these total wars arose in response to the economic and social conflicts, and seemed unavoidable in order to solve these problems. What is different this time is that the United States has deliberately precipitated the total war without the slightest rational pretext or justification. Plus, it has no relation whatever to the real current problems of our nation, but instead is deliberately calculated to exaccerbate them. In the future these facts will be clearly seen, I believe, as it already is seen by much of the world, and Americans will not be so easily led into passively accepting it. Anyone who does not see this is himself/herself merely a right-winger, however much (s)he talks of being "non-partisan." Anyone who is "non-partisan" about such an illegal and immoral war is refusing to face what may be one of the real issues of the crisis.

Never before has our 4th turning war been something which consisted of a preemptive strike against another nation. It has in the past been caused by an external attack (facilitated by economic collapse here in the USA-- WWII), or by a political upheaval (Revolution, Civil War) here in the USA. Other 4th turns in earlier times also started from external stimulus and political upheavals. Never before has the president been directly responsible for plunging our nation into a fourth turning. Never before has such a turning been deliberately started by a president of the USA. Never before has the fourth turning consisted of the United States imposing its colonial and imperial will on the rest of the world. Never before has a 4th turn started because a US president decided we must preemptively strike another nation, in the first in a series of such preemptive conquests.

9-11 did not have to result in a fourth turning. I knew that such a conflict would happen in late Summer 2001. I did not expect it would generate the fourth turning. It would not have done so, except for what happened in Nov.-Dec.2000, in which an incompetent president was fraudulently put into office.

So in fact, Nov.2000 could just as easily be called the start of the 4th turning, if indeed we are in one. Because an irrational response to the 9-11 attacks would not otherwise have happened. Without the Bush presidency we would have handled the attack and slid back into 3T. There is no connection netween 9-11 and Iraq. Bubba makes a good case for why we might think so: we have decided that we must "transform the Middle East into a democratic, free-market area, or it will continue to be a source of attacks against America." But there is no need to draw such a conclusion. We could have been satisfied to track down and eliminate Al Qaeda, and instead worked on getting the USA out of supporting Israel's occupation. Attacks would then have ceased. Had we concentrated on this, Al Qaeda would have been liquidated by now. Instead, our crusade will only generate more Al Qaedas. Nor do I believe the rest of the world will sit back and allow us to continue preemptive attacks on other nations. A coalition will develop against us, and such preemptive attacks will no longer be possible without world war. The new American Napoleonic power will meet its Waterloo.

Nor do I think the American people will continue to approve of bankrolling and backing this endless imperial war to remake other nations. We don't have the money, and we don't like unnecessary war casualties. So if this total war continues to remake the Middle East, as Bush and Co. plan (and it won't be limited to the Middle East; there are other threats to us), the American people will rise up and resist it. The peace movement is growing and will not go away. Anyone who ignores this fact (as bubba has) is not being "non-partisan."

The real crisis, then, if in fact it is starting today (and would probably be backdated to 9-11-2001), will consist at least in part of a struggle over this imperial foreign policy and the resulting domestic "homeland" repression. If this total and unending war on terror continues (which it must, if this war is in fact a 4T war), our nation will be plunged into depression, because we can't afford it. Thus, social conflicts will be stimulated as well, and the result will likely be the split of our country along lines revealed in Nov.2000 (red and blue zones). This split should happen by the 2020s. The crisis will last at least 25 years, and what we have now is what another poster above calls "the phoney 4T."

I think this phoney 4T could continue a while longer if the Iraq war is resolved quickly and the occupation goes well. But it will just be a matter of time before the next war happens. Any business as usual will not be sustainable in the face of such continuing wars.

However, if the American people repudiate this policy in the 2004 elections, there is a chance we could return to 3T, if the next president can extricate our nation from the Middle East before the costs plunge us into depression. This may be unlikely, however, because once we have occupied Iraq it will be hard to pull out without completing the mission-- which could take at least 5-10 years to complete, at great cost in money and possibly in lives--and this will be added to the mounting domestic costs, debts and deficits.

So, even if a Democratic president ends the series of preemptive attacks in 2005, conflict in Iraq could continue, and a depression due in around 2010 will follow anyway. But then the Crisis could take a different course, and the conflicts will be mainly domestic and environmental. On the other hand, even then, terror attacks could resume, and the Republicans could be reinstated in 2008 or 2012, in which case Bush III will follow; and the crisis will consist largely of the struggle to end the imperial power of the USA, waged both within our nation and without.

If something like the election of 2000 happened today do you think that the national mood would tolerate a month of legal wrangling before the issue was decided, or would the argument be advanced and seriously accepted that with the threats the nation faces due to the war on terror the parties must resolve the issue promptly for the good of the nation?

The fact, of course, is that the "wrangling" was prematurely stopped anyway, and Bush got away with total fraud.

Originally Posted by bubba

I have news for most of you if you are a member of the traditional left or right you will not like what is coming. My personal preference would be for increasing both personal and economic freedom. However, for reasons I will recount later, I believe that the evidence indicates that just the opposite is what is going to come of this.

That your statement here seems so accuarate is in itself an indicator that we have indeed entered the 4T. What is coming is something new. We have a chance now to mold that new reality but we will not be able to shoe-horn it into our old paradigms. I think that is precisely why we see so much invective from the holders of various ideologies on this site. We are getting to the point where we know we are not going back but we are also terribly uncertain about where we are going, since we have not got to regeneracy yet. That uncertainty makes people want to cling more tightly to the old ways of thinking.

Bush is proposing that we invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein. He is also stating fairly clearly that we are going to remake that country into something else much like was done with Japan and Germany. He is further suggesting that this is going to be the beginning of a process that will remake the Middle East into something other than what it is today. Now depending on what pole you believe the support for this among the public is somewhere between 54% and 71%. Do you believe that it is possible that in a pre 9-11 world it would have been possible to get support anywhere near 50% for this?

No. Clinton could not get the support even for a bombing campaign when the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998. I believe the Lewinsky thing was not so much an impediment as was the fact that the United States was not ready not intervene even in that lesser manner. After all, we also put up with the Embassy bombings and the USS Cole with no retaliation. It seems the Lewinsky scandal was more of an excuse to focus on something else rather than face the unraveled nature of the world.

9/11 was definitely a wake-up call. There were signs that the unraveling could not procede much farther and that the new season was on the way. there were like the gradual turning of the leaves from brilliant to brown as the first cold harbingers of winter winds began to blow. 9/11, though, was like the first really good winter snow. And like that, we knew something had changed but we were not entirely convinced that we could not go back.

...US out of the UN...(snip) ...I would be willing to bet that this position will have a few more supporters than it did in the past. How many do you think have drawn the conclusion that the in the future the UN should be avoided. Next time an American administration wants to do something like what is being done in Iraq don?t you think that immense pressure not to subject ourselves to the UN will be exerted. Isn?t this rather fourth turning?

Yep. The unraveling of the UN as an institution that could act was clearly seen throughout the '90's (Think Somalia, Rwanda, Kosovo) but the recent failure of the UN and the US decision to go ahead is indeed a 4T action. I expect that we will not deal with the UN as readily in the future--at least as long as the current admin is in the White House.
I think the UN as it functioned throughout the last 3 turnings, was a cold-war institution. If the UN is to remain viable, this 4T will also transform it into something different than it was before.

Think about this new department of homeland security ...snip .....Again without regard as to whether you personally agree with these policies doesn?t the fact that they have been implemented without a public outcry indicate that a fourth turning has occurred.

This is a sign of a 4T. I would argue further that how we respond to this in the next few years will be part of what determines how we come out of this crisis. That there needs to be some accomodation of our daily habits to security is unquestionable, but what should be debated and worked out is how much that should intrude on rights and priveleges. At some time after we have entered regeneracy I expect this should be part of our national conversation.

I also ask you to take a look at child rearing, don?t you believe that after 9-11 we certainly have moved towards a more protective manner of raising children?

I would agree with this qualification: During the unraveling, early cohort
X-ers like me ('61) and late cohort boomers were already tightening parenting standards. This was seem particularly with respect to the wars over educational standards, the war on drugs, the sex-abuse witch hunts of the '80's and...(I could go on but you are probably getting the picture).
This is in keeping with S&H's depiction of a 3T.

What appear to be new now is that there has been active concern in the past few weeks and months about protecting children from the psychological fallout surrounding 9/11, the mobilization of troops, the coming war and the threats to security at home.

Evidence for this includes the press on the schools in Maine in which teachers disparaged the military service of parents. That did not happen in the Awakening with Vietnam. I am a teacher and I can tell you that in our district we have disaster plans that now include caring for the kids if there is a chemical or biological attack. We have been told not to share those plans with the children because that might make them feel afraid and insecure. I have heard the same from other teachers in other districts. This is very different than the lock-down drills we saw after Columbine.

Yesterday, at our high school we received an unapologetic threat from the principal stating that there would be dire consequences for any teacher who discussed the war in ways that made students feel unsafe or guilty. This e-mail said not to "lecture the kids on the Just War theory" (this is a Catholic High School) and not to discuss a possible draft. We are not to disparage leaders although we may (in social studies classes) open a discussion that respectfully listens to differing points of view. How different this is from my high school days when we were subjected to sarcastic comments from teachers if we had heroes. If we mentioned any current or past American that we might admire we were immediately given a list of that person's faults.


Thanks for the interesting post!

bubba wrote:
I don’t know why I mess with this discussion group. The vast majority of the posters here are completely incapable of analyzing anything with out letting their normative views color the analysis... Speaking just for myself the name [Homeland Security] conjures up unpleasant Stalinesque images...

quote:
Coloring the analysis and evidence to the contrary aside, I have concluded that this "unpleasant Stalinesque images" stuff, so prevalent in these threads, has it's roots deeply seated in the notion of "moral relativism": the view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them.

Thus, when Bubba held court, while dropping bombs and sending U.S. troops all over the world, all was well. But now that Dubya does it, even in the aftermath of 9.11, he suddenly invokes "unpleasant Stalinesque images."

Oh sure, you might claim that you are more concerned about civil liberties at home being trounced on. But the Clinton's blatant use of the FBI, in the travel office firings and Filegate, the senseless killing of women and children at Waco, and the ease by which a sitting president lied straightface to the American people, a federal grand jury, and a federal judge belies your supposed fears.


Mr. Lamb, I don’t know where you get the idea that I am a wild eyed liberal, in 1984 I voted for Reagan, in 1988 Bush, in 1992 Bush, in 1996 Dole in 2000 Bush. I consider my self a conservative in the sense that Barry Gold water was. I consider myself a conservative because I distrust government in managing both my personal life and the economy. However, I reject libertarianism because I believe a more assertive foreign policy than they espouse is required. The idea of an office of homeland security just conjures up visions of Eastern Europe during the cold war and check points where armed officers of the state periodically demand to see your papers. Sorry it offends you but it simply does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling. Just as a point of interest Mr. Lamb, this is the same gut level reaction George Bush apparently had as well as initially he was opposed to forming the office of homeland security and is opposed to national identity cards.

Your violent reaction to my post when I stated that civil liberties have been limited in the process of opposing terrorism is a classic example of what I think is wrong with much of this discussion. If you read my post carefully and unemotionally you will see that I never said whether I thought what we have done in fighting terrorism is good or bad I simply stated that it had happened and it has happened with very little public outcry where a few years ago there would have been. I said nothing about whether I agree or disagree I simply cited it as evidence that a fourth turning has arrived. If you note I still have not told you whether I think it is good or bad as that is not the issue.

Mr. Meece, while I agree with you that one’s normative views will color their judgment I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that separating ones normative views from analysis is not possible. One can and if one has a disciplined mind go a long way towards separating their normative views from accepting what is. For example I believe that social security should be privatized, I also accept that the political consensus to do so is not present and is not likely to ever be present. You could do the same, you don’t like the war, but it is clear that at a minimum half the country and probably more has bought into it. Accepting that something has occurred does not mean that one approves of it. For example I believe that laws against ticket scalping are absurd, however, I accept and acknowledge that in many jurisdictions it is against the law.
Those who take the position that it is not possible to separate one’s normative views from analysis are individuals who simply wish to replace scholarship with partisan diatribe.
Finally Mr. Meece, I made no predictions as to how this fourth turning will end, I do not know if it will be a victory for the left or the right or something else all together. I simply cited evidence that I believe it has arrived. Go back and read my post I never said any particular group would get its way I simply recited some facts and said these facts support the supposition that the national mood has changed. Your response to my post is classic evidence of how failing to separate ones normative views from analysis leads to failing to see what is there.
Take your response to what I said about the 2000 election. I made not comment about who I believe won or what I think a just or fair outcome would be I simply said I don’t think the national mood would tolerate 30 or so of not knowing who won the election right now. You take this assertion of what I believe is a fact and write:

[[quote
If something like the election of 2000 happened today do you think that the national mood would tolerate a month of legal wrangling before the issue was decided, or would the argument be advanced and seriously accepted that with the threats the nation faces due to the war on terror the parties must resolve the issue promptly for the good of the nation?

quote:
The fact, of course, is that the "wrangling" was prematurely stopped anyway, and Bush got away with total fraud

What in the world does that have to do with what I said? I simply stated that the national mood would not tolerate it today as it did in 2000. Do you see how your partisanship is keeping you from seeing what is there?

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by bubba

I don?t know why I mess with this discussion group. The vast majority of the posters here are completely incapable of analyzing anything with out letting their normative views color the analysis...

Speaking just for myself the name [Homeland Security] conjures up unpleasant Stalinesque images...

Coloring the analysis and evidence to the contrary aside, I have concluded that this "unpleasant Stalinesque images" stuff, so prevalent in these threads, has it's roots deeply seated in the notion of "moral relativism": the view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them.

Thus, when Bubba held court, while dropping bombs and sending U.S. troops all over the world, all was well. But now that Dubya does it, even in the aftermath of 9.11, he suddenly invokes "unpleasant Stalinesque images."

Oh sure, you might claim that you are more concerned about civil liberties at home being trounced on. But the Clinton's blatant use of the FBI, in the travel office firings and Filegate, the senseless killing of women and children at Waco, and the ease by which a sitting president lied straightface to the American people, a federal grand jury, and a federal judge belies your supposed fears.

You accepted all of this stuff when Clinton held court, but now that a Republican holds the reigns of power, "unpleasant Stalinesque images" are just around the corner.

You liberals are just hypocrites, plain and simple. Your supposed "ethical truths" are known only to you, and your ever shrinking group. Amd have no basis whatsoever in fact or reality.

Marc, you have to be clear whether you mean the poster who goes by "Bubba" or if you mean President Clinton. Also, we don't know what the poster who goes by "Bubba" thinks about the actions of the Clinton administration.

Originally Posted by elilevin

Originally Posted by bubba

Bush is proposing that we invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein. He is also stating fairly clearly that we are going to remake that country into something else much like was done with Japan and Germany. He is further suggesting that this is going to be the beginning of a process that will remake the Middle East into something other than what it is today. Now depending on what pole you believe the support for this among the public is somewhere between 54% and 71%. Do you believe that it is possible that in a pre 9-11 world it would have been possible to get support anywhere near 50% for this?

No. Clinton could not get the support even for a bombing campaign when the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998. I believe the Lewinsky thing was not so much an impediment as was the fact that the United States was not ready not intervene even in that lesser manner. After all, we also put up with the Embassy bombings and the USS Cole with no retaliation. It seems the Lewinsky scandal was more of an excuse to focus on something else rather than face the unraveled nature of the world.

This just simply is not true. The American people revealed time and again they wanted a "tough" response to these terrorist acts:

The Cole
By Byron York NR White House Correspondent
December 17, 2001

The last act of terrorism during the Clinton administration came on October 12, 2000, when bin Laden operatives bombed the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen. Seventeen American sailors were killed, 39 others were wounded, and one of the U.S.'s most sophisticated warships was nearly sunk.

Clinton's reaction to the Cole terrorism was more muted than his response to the previous attacks. While he called the bombing "a despicable and cowardly act" and said, "We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable," he seemed more concerned that the attack might threaten the administration's work in the Middle East (the bombing came at the same time as a new spate of violence between Israelis and Palestinians). "If [the terrorists'] intention was to deter us from our mission of promoting peace and security in the Middle East, they will fail utterly," Clinton said on the morning of the attack. The next day, the Washington Post's John Harris, who had good connections inside the administration, wrote, "While the apparent suicide bombing of the USS Cole may have been the more dramatic episode for the American public, the escalation between Israelis and Palestinians took the edge in preoccupying senior administration officials yesterday. This was regarded as the more fluid of the two problems, and it presented the broader threat to Clinton's foreign policy aims."

As in 1998, U.S. investigators quickly linked the bombing to bin Laden and his sponsors in Afghanistan's Taliban regime. Together with the embassy bombings, the Cole blast established a clear pattern of attacks on American interests carried out by bin Laden's organization. Clinton had a solid rationale, and would most likely have had solid public support, for strong military action. Yet he did nothing. Perhaps he didn't want to endanger the cherished goal of Middle East peace. Perhaps he didn't want to disrupt the 2000 presidential campaign, then in its last days. Perhaps he didn't know quite what to do. But in the end, the ball was kicked a bit farther down the field.

In early August 1996, a few weeks after the Khobar Towers bombing, Clinton had a long conversation with Dick Morris about his place in history. Morris divided presidents into four categories: first tier, second tier, third tier, and the rest. Twenty-two presidents who presided over uneventful administrations fell into the last category. Just five ? Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt ? made Morris's first tier.

Clinton asked Morris where he stood. "I said that at the moment he was at the top of the unrated category," Morris recalls. Morris says he told the president that one surprising thing about the ratings was that a president's standing had little to do with the performance of the economy during his time in office. "Yeah," Clinton responded, "It has so much to do with whether you get re-elected or not, but history kind of forgets it."

Clinton then asked, "What do I need to do to be first tier?" "I said, 'You can't,'" Morris remembers. "'You have to win a war.'" Clinton then asked what he needed to do to make the second or third tier, and Morris outlined three goals. The first was successful welfare reform. The second was balancing the budget. And the third was an effective battle against terrorism. "I said the only one of the major goals he had not achieved was a war on terrorism," Morris says. (This is not a recent recollection; Morris also described the conversation in his 1997 book, Behind the Oval Office.)

But Clinton never began, much less finished, a war on terrorism. Even though Morris's polling showed the poll-sensitive president that the American people supported tough action, Clinton demurred. Why?

"He had almost an allergy to using people in uniform," Morris explains. "He was terrified of incurring casualties; the lessons of Vietnam were ingrained far too deeply in him. He lacked a faith that it would work, and I think he was constantly fearful of reprisals." But there was more to it than that. "On another level, I just don't think it was his thing," Morris says. "You could talk to him about income redistribution and he would talk to you for hours and hours. Talk to him about terrorism, and all you'd get was a series of grunts."

And that is the key to understanding Bill Clinton's handling of the terrorist threat that grew throughout his two terms in the White House: It just wasn't his thing. Clinton was right when he said history might care little about the prosperity of his era. Now, as he tries to defend his record on terrorism, he appears to sense that he will be judged harshly on an issue that is far more important than the Nasdaq or 401(k) balances. He's right about that, too.

York covers the Clinton era response here, if you care to get the facts.

I believe the battle lines for the idealogy of this 4T are now mostly set. The 3T idealogies were basically market fundamentalism - or the idea that the market makes optimum choices - and spiritual fundamentalism - or the idea that if you free individuals from societal power structures they will make optimal choices. Bush has now integrated these two idealogies to form one version of the regeneracy. He has adopted market fundamentalism and has stuck to it with his tax cuts, but in addition, as a result of 9/11 he has also adopted spiritual fundamentalism. He has stated that by freeing Iraq from its leader(s) the citizens will build a stable democracy. Bush's version is set against the left's version, which states that spiritual fundamentalism consists of removing past discrimination and inequitable power distributions in domestic society together with allowing foreign states to set their own agendas free from our unjust interventions that result from our own misuse of power.

I also believe Bush's version will prevail in this 4T. The new elites in this country are thoroughly indoctrinated in market fundamentalism. As I've spent a large amount of time in a business school I believe I am right in asserting that the corporate and entrepreneurial elites revere this doctrine. The spiritual fundamentalism comes from the evangelical churches and the new age spiritualism of the last Awakening. The evangelical churches have the organizational werewithal to align with the new economy elites and their market fundamentalism and become the dominant coalition in this 4T.

The fundamental (pun intended) flaw in these idealogies is the idea that the individual left to her own devices will act in her own best interest which in turn optimally benefit society. This is a result of a flawed assumption of human behavior. If we hold these ideas too strongly we'll fail to see that individuals act out of habit and thus we cannot overcome these habits by allowing markets to select economic behavior (as the Right holds) or by eliminating the results of past discrimination (as the Left holds).

I anticipate this idealogy to take hold in the next 1T, to be attacked in the next 2T, and finally repudiated in the next 4T.

I would like to ask the wonk a question, and by the way I appreciate you pointing out to Mr. Lamb that he has not idea what I think about Clinton because I have not said, and if I were to give a view of Clinton it would be mixed.

What I would like to as is this isn't it possible to believe that basic premise of different generations behaving differently for reasons I have already summarized is correct, but that the authors oversell their point a bit by saying each stage lasts 20 years and so on. Wouldn't all this theory really say in roughly 20 years give or take a few depending on external stimuli and who holds what positions the national mood will change?

I have always thought the authors took a really good idea and then oversold it a bit by claiming a greater predictive validity than the theory really can ever deliver.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Marc, you have to be clear whether you mean the poster who goes by "Bubba" or if you mean President Clinton. Also, we don't know what the poster who goes by "Bubba" thinks about the actions of the Clinton administration.

I thought it was pretty obvious, and I don't care what "bubba" thought about Clinton as it was irrelavent to my comments (that were aimed at a much broader audience, not him per se).

does anyone know why you can type the wor NO and when you post it is changed to not?

Originally Posted by bubba

Mr. Lamb, I don?t know where you get the idea that I am a wild eyed liberal, in 1984 I voted for Reagan, in 1988 Bush, in 1992 Bush, in 1996 Dole in 2000 Bush. I consider my self a conservative in the sense that Barry Gold water was. I consider myself a conservative because I distrust government in managing both my personal life and the economy. However, I reject libertarianism because I believe a more assertive foreign policy than they espouse is required. The idea of an office of homeland security just conjures up visions of Eastern Europe during the cold war and check points where armed officers of the state periodically demand to see your papers.

d'oh!... now you've done it, bubba. that's just gonna confuse the man. to level the playing field with marc, you should try to stay within a easily identifiable political stereotype.

Originally Posted by bubba

Your violent reaction to my post when I stated that civil liberties have been limited in the process of opposing terrorism is a classic example of what I think is wrong with much of this discussion.

amen.

Originally Posted by bubba

If you read my post carefully and unemotionally....

are you talking about some other marc here? because that's gonna go nowhere with this one....

Originally Posted by bubba

Mr. Meece....I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that separating ones normative views from analysis is not possible. One can and if one has a disciplined mind go a long way towards separating their normative views from accepting what is.....

more amen.

Originally Posted by bubba

Those who take the position that it is not possible to separate one?s normative views from analysis are individuals who simply wish to replace scholarship with partisan diatribe.

since you're new here (or at least i think you are, aren't you?), and probably don't realize it, i should let you know that the two people you've chosen to respond to are probably the two most classic examples of partisanship on the forum.

and they won't be changing their tunes anytime soon.


just a tip,

TK

Yes I am new, Mrs. Lamb and Meece just amaze me in the ability they have to ignore reality and spin anything into a harbinger of their version of utopia.

I may be wasting my breath but I thought I would try.

Originally Posted by bubba

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by bubba

I don?t know why I mess with this discussion group. The vast majority of the posters here are completely incapable of analyzing anything with out letting their normative views color the analysis...

Speaking just for myself the name [Homeland Security] conjures up unpleasant Stalinesque images...

Coloring the analysis and evidence to the contrary aside, I have concluded that this "unpleasant Stalinesque images" stuff, so prevalent in these threads, has it's roots deeply seated in the notion of "moral relativism": the view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them.

Thus, when Bubba held court, while dropping bombs and sending U.S. troops all over the world, all was well. But now that Dubya does it, even in the aftermath of 9.11, he suddenly invokes "unpleasant Stalinesque images."

Oh sure, you might claim that you are more concerned about civil liberties at home being trounced on. But the Clinton's blatant use of the FBI, in the travel office firings and Filegate, the senseless killing of women and children at Waco, and the ease by which a sitting president lied straightface to the American people, a federal grand jury, and a federal judge belies your supposed fears.

You accepted all of this stuff when Clinton held court, but now that a Republican holds the reigns of power, "unpleasant Stalinesque images" are just around the corner.

You liberals are just hypocrites, plain and simple. Your supposed "ethical truths" are known only to you, and your ever shrinking group. Amd have no basis whatsoever in fact or reality.

Mr. Lamb, I don?t know where you get the idea that I am a wild eyed liberal, in 1984 I voted for Reagan, in 1988 Bush, in 1992 Bush, in 1996 Dole in 2000 Bush. I consider my self a conservative in the sense that Barry Gold water was. I consider myself a conservative because I distrust government in managing both my personal life and the economy. However, I reject libertarianism because I believe a more assertive foreign policy than they espouse is required. The idea of an office of homeland security just conjures up visions of Eastern Europe during the cold war and check points where armed officers of the state periodically demand to see your papers. Sorry it offends you but it simply does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling. Just as a point of interest Mr. Lamb, this is the same gut level reaction George Bush apparently had as well as initially he was opposed to forming the office of homeland security and is opposed to national identity cards.

Your violent reaction to my post when I stated that civil liberties have been limited in the process of opposing terrorism is a classic example of what I think is wrong with much of this discussion. If you read my post carefully and unemotionally you will see that I never said whether I thought what we have done in fighting terrorism is good or bad I simply stated that it had happened and it has happened with very little public outcry where a few years ago there would have been. I said nothing about whether I agree or disagree I simply cited it as evidence that a fourth turning has arrived. If you note I still have not told you whether I think it is good or bad as that is not the issue.

Like I said earlier, my response to what you wrote (as I posted very little of a long post) was not directed at you per se, but rather to liberals in general. I intentionally began by saying, "Coloring the analysis and evidence to the contrary aside," meaning I was choosing to leapfrog that in order to "have concluded" why this (your quote) "unpleasant Stalinesque images" stuff, so prevails "in these threads."

As far as thinking you were a "wild eyed liberal," I suppose, basis on some kind of logical fallacy, I would have to think the same thing of Stonewall Patton, a prominent poster, and Reagan supporter. But I don't think that at all.

And my post was not a "violent reaction" to anything but the clear hypocricy of the left who defended the Clintons to the hilt, even when they were doing the very same things they accuse Bush of doing, and worse. I suspect when you saw "when Bubba held court..." you thought I was addressing you, but I was clearly not.

And finally, your use of the type of gulagish language such as "unpleasant Stalinesque images," I find demeaning to those who really suffered under such maddness, and continue to do so. Nothing at all even remotely resembles it in this country.

And for those who even suggest that it does consigns them, in my opinion, to the ash heap of the American civil liberties debate.

Mr. Lamb,

I do not now and have never believed the United States is a Stalininst regieme. I do find something about an organization named the office of homeland security a bit unsettling because of the images it conjures up.

You have no idea what I think about the steps taken that limit civil liberties as I have yet to tell you. I simply stated that we have taken actions in the name of the war on terror that would have provoked a huge outcry in the past with very little public outcry, and that is evidence that a fourth turning has arrived.

Actually Mr. Lamb, you suffer what all too many liberals do and that is a propensity to take yourself and everything else way too seriously.

Lighten up.

Originally Posted by bubba

Yes I am new, Mrs. Lamb and Meece just amaze me in the ability they have to ignore reality and spin anything into a harbinger of their version of utopia.

Bubba, I know that you were just trying to say "Misters" but the idea of Marc Lamb being a Missus is just too funny! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

opps you caught me

Originally Posted by bubba

Actually Mr. Lamb, you suffer what all too many liberals do and that is a propensity to take yourself and everything else way too seriously.

Lighten up.

Putting Marc in the same camp as "liberals" will only get you admonished again. Here's a hint: I'm a liberal. You can unload on me. I can take it, and will respond in kind (Silver Rule).

... or you can do as Trollking recommends, and take NONE of this seriously. After all, this is entertainment.

Originally Posted by bubba

Actually Mr. Lamb, you suffer what all too many liberals do and that is a propensity to take yourself and everything else way too seriously.

Lighten up.

Cute.

If you really are a conservative, propensity or no propensity, you won't last very long at this site. Few have. :wink:

DRUDGE is reporting:

Protester Dies in Golden Gate Bridge Fall...

Well, the first casualty of the "Bush's War," folks: The Stalinist repression has begun... the gulags can't be far behind.


p.s. How's that for lightening up, bubba? :wink:

I've been rereading T4T, and found a few statements towards the end of the book, which I think are worthy of being brought together for further reflection. On page 325, S&H state that 'When the Crisis hits, Boomers will need to defuse the Culture Wars at once.' Obviously, this has NOT been done. If anything, they have been intensified in the atmosphere of increased urgency attending the pre-regeneracy phase.

Now, put this together with their statements on pages 275 ('The winners will now have the power to pursue the more potent, less incrementalist agenda about which they have long dreamed and against which their adversaries had darkly warned.'), 276 and 277 ('Institutions will be increasingly bossy, limiting personal freedoms, chastising bad manners, and cleansing the culture. Powerful new civic organizations will make judgments about which individual rights deserve respect and which do not. Criminal justice will become swift and rough, trampling on some innocents to protect an endangered and desperate society from those feared to be guilty.'), and 319 ('As the technicalities give way, innocent people will suffer. If you don't want to be misjudged, don't act in a way that might provoke Crisis-era authority to deem you guilty.')

Taking all of the above quotes together, what might happen to those who support the losers of the election next year, as said election outcome would probably signal the outcome of the Culture Wars at this point? :o

Originally Posted by jds1958xg

I've been rereading T4T, and found a few statements towards the end of the book, which I think are worthy of being brought together for further reflection. On page 325, S&H state that 'When the Crisis hits, Boomers will need to defuse the Culture Wars at once.' Obviously, this has NOT been done. If anything, they have been intensified in the atmosphere of increased urgency attending the pre-regeneracy phase.

Now, put this together with their statements on pages 275 ('The winners will now have the power to pursue the more potent, less incrementalist agenda about which they have long dreamed and against which their adversaries had darkly warned.'), 276 and 277 ('Institutions will be increasingly bossy, limiting personal freedoms, chastising bad manners, and cleansing the culture. Powerful new civic organizations will make judgments about which individual rights deserve respect and which do not. Criminal justice will become swift and rough, trampling on some innocents to protect an endangered and desperate society from those feared to be guilty.'), and 319 ('As the technicalities give way, innocent people will suffer. If you don't want to be misjudged, don't act in a way that might provoke Crisis-era authority to deem you guilty.')

Taking all of the above quotes together, what might happen to those who support the losers of the election next year, as said election outcome would probably signal the outcome of the Culture Wars at this point? :o

I do not recall anything worse happening to the losers of an American election than that they and their beliefs would be marginalized for a time, even if that time was as long as a generation. (Think of Republicans/conservatives in the FDR/Truman eras) They aren't rounded up and shot or sent off to the re-education camps in the Cambodian jungles. As of this time I don't believe that anything violent or brutal is going to happen to the losers of the 2004 elections.
What I do believe may be more immediately relevant to the quotes from S and H that you gave will be the proposed "actions" by elements of the anti-war movement for the beginning of the war. Those of you in the rest of the country may not have heard about this, but here in Seattle there has been a very visible and vocal call for disruption starting on the first day of the war. Posters have been up for months now which headline "When the war starts, America stops". They have been "refreshed" in the past week and websites are posted which will give info and instructions on what, where, and when. I personally believe that the people involved are quite serious about this. We have had three incidents this week of fake bio-warfare scares, envelopes left at businesses in West Seattle with white powder (turned out to be Farina) and anti-war messages written on them. Today a man was arrested for spreading an orange powder downtown. All of these meant that Hazmat had to be called out and people evacuated from the buildings until the all clear.
The posters suggest that people call in bomb threats to schools, businesses, and hospitals and I've heard that there are plans to occupy bridges and freeway entrances to shut down traffic. (Seattle is connected by bridges; even closing one would mess us up in a big way)
I've heard on the radio that the police have heard of plans by anarchists to rampage downtown, smashing windows and attacking shoppers, ala WTO.
I have to wonder, in the context of the 4T quotes such as jds1958 gave, at what point does all this cross a new line where we previously put up with radical protesters but now society gets much more repressive as we are in a war/terrorist alert situation. My own hunch is that at least here in Seattle there won't be the kid-glove approach that happened at WTO. What may also be interesting if the local authorities really crack down is that our city, county, and state governments are overwhelmingly Democrat. (and, in general, quite liberal) One of the big reasons that the previous Mayor didn't get past the primaries for re-election was anger over WTO and the Mardi Gras riots a few months later. I doubt that the new Mayor is eager to be seen as a pushover for the anarchists. I also think that our liberal Democrat County Executive and State Governor will be quite eager to squash troublemakers. It may all be very interesting.