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 379







Post#9451 at 02-06-2005 11:44 PM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
02-06-2005, 11:44 PM #9451
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

American Fascism?

This is an interesting article from Pat Buchanan's mag.

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/article.html

David K '47







Post#9452 at 02-07-2005 12:02 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
02-07-2005, 12:02 AM #9452
Guest

Re: American Fascism?

Quote Originally Posted by The American Conservative
Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2
This is an interesting article from Pat Buchanan's mag
February 14, 2005
Hunger for Dictatorship
War to export democracy may wreck our own.
by Scott McConnell
Students of history inevitably think in terms of periods: the New Deal, McCarthyism, ?the Sixties? (1964-1973)
Here's a quote from The Americana 1950 Annual:
  • "National Elections. -- the election to the first Bundestag of the Federal Republic of Germany took place on August 14, 1949, and resulted in a clear-cut victory for the parties of the center. The extremists of both right and left were without substantial support. It was the first free election to a German parliament since 1933, and brought out 23.7 million (78.56 per cent) of the eligible voters [Sound recently familar?] -- a fact which surprised many foreign observers who felt that the Germans were apathetic in their regard to such a democratic freedom as an election." (emphasis mine)
Students of history inevitably think in terms of periods: the New Deal, then, WWII and the Cold War victory over Fascist and Soviet commie tyranny.

Rarely do these "Students of history" get a true glimpse of the truth.







Post#9453 at 02-07-2005 12:07 AM by Devils Advocate [at joined Nov 2004 #posts 1,834]
---
02-07-2005, 12:07 AM #9453
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
1,834

Re: American Fascism?

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2
This is an interesting article from Pat Buchanan's mag.

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/article.html

David K '47
There is an odd alliance between the libertarian right and the social (or reform) democrats. I recall that during the student demonstrations against IMF/World Bank policies in DC in 2000, the libertarians were part of our coalition. I think this is because there is a vacuum in American political discourse as Republicans now very much wish to tell you how to live your life. They have abandoned the mantle of Goldwater style individual liberty - the kind that libertarians fight so hard for - which means its there for the Dems to snatch up.







Post#9454 at 02-07-2005 03:38 AM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
02-07-2005, 03:38 AM #9454
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: From what direction have ye come?

Quote Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59
Quote Originally Posted by Max
Quote Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons
Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Nevertheless, what you are saying here is that the south of today is still the south of 1964.
No, that is what you are saying that I am saying. I never said any such thing.
Perfect example of why it's a waste of time to feed the troll. It could even be dangerous. :wink:
Troll? It's been awhile but isn't Mike pretty much smack dab in the middle? Hardly Troll worthy.
Yes, Mike is in the middle. He's not the one being called a troll. It's who Mike is responding to that is being so identified.
Precisely. 8)
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#9455 at 02-07-2005 09:40 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
02-07-2005, 09:40 AM #9455
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

We few, we unhappy few

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Stanley Kurtz
It wouldn?t take a full-scale economic meltdown,
or even a relative disparity in births between fundamentalists and
secularists, to change modernity?s course. Chronic low-level economic
stress in a rapidly aging world may be enough. There is good reason to
worry about the fate of elderly boomers with fragile families, limited
savings, and relatively few children to care for them. A younger generation
of workers will soon feel the burden of paying for the care of this massive
older generation. The nursing shortage, already acute, will undoubtedly
worsen, possibly foreshadowing shortages in many other categories of
workers. Real estate values could be threatened by population decline. And
all these demographically tinged issues, and more, will likely become the media?s daily fare.


In such an atmosphere, a new set of social values could
emerge along with a fundamentally new calculation of personal interest.
Modernity itself may come in for criticism even as a new appreciation for
the benefits of marriage and parenting might emerge. A successful
pronatalist policy (if achieved by means of the conventional family rather
than through surrogacy or artificial wombs) would only reinforce the
conservative trend. In that case we will surely find that it is cultural
radicals standing athwart history?s new trend yelling
?Stop!?

Humankind faces three fundamental choices in the years
ahead: at least a partial restoration of traditional social values, a
radical new eugenics, or endless and compounding population decline. For a
long time, this choice may not be an either/or. Divisions will likely
emerge both within and between societies on how to proceed. Some regions
may grow more traditional, others may experiment with radical new social
forms, while still others may continue to shrink. And a great deal will
depend upon an economic future that no one can predict with certainty. In
any case, the social innovations of the modern world are still being
tested, and the outcome is unresolved.
Demographics and the Culture War in Policy Review of February 2005







Post#9456 at 02-07-2005 11:30 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
02-07-2005, 11:30 AM #9456
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Max
Surely this one's been discussed ad infinitum... ANY BODY care about
Michael Jackson? I haven't read one word about his case..don't care...
just let me know when it's over.

The celebrity gossip newsmags don't seem to care about it either.

Is it 4T or more that MJ is a sick puppy has-been?
I don't give a crap about the MJ trial either, or anything else that has to do with so-called "celebrity justice."







Post#9457 at 02-07-2005 11:54 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
02-07-2005, 11:54 AM #9457
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Quote Originally Posted by Max
Surely this one's been discussed ad infinitum... ANY BODY care about
Michael Jackson? I haven't read one word about his case..don't care...
just let me know when it's over.

The celebrity gossip newsmags don't seem to care about it either.

Is it 4T or more that MJ is a sick puppy has-been?
I don't give a crap about the MJ trial either, or anything else that has to do with so-called "celebrity justice."
Hi Max!

I guess your positin on the Left Coast makes celebrity more a constant. We on the Right Coast are ambivalent to bored by it.
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.







Post#9458 at 02-07-2005 12:03 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
02-07-2005, 12:03 PM #9458
Guest

Away down south in Dixieland!

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
If one wishes to demonstrate that being a Southern Party means something tangible, fine, make your case.
So where it once was the liberal Democrats who got us into wars, now its going to be the conservative Republicans. Not because of conservative versus liberal ideology, but because of regional culture.
Well, this probably goes along way toward explaining Democrats current bitterness and outright loathing of America. Think about it, ever since the New Deal in 1932, a Southern Party has in-effect ran this country! First it was via the Democrats, and then beginning with the rebellion of the "Blue dog" Dixiecrats swinging with Reagan (and culminating with the southerner Newt stealing away the Democrat's forty year hold on Congress), America has solidly remained in southern hands for nearly eighty years, now.

Not bad for a "region" that was utterly destroyed during the Civil War, eh? 8)







Post#9459 at 02-07-2005 12:17 PM by Prisoner 81591518 [at joined Mar 2003 #posts 2,460]
---
02-07-2005, 12:17 PM #9459
Join Date
Mar 2003
Posts
2,460

Re: We few, we unhappy few

Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Stanley Kurtz
It wouldn?t take a full-scale economic meltdown,
or even a relative disparity in births between fundamentalists and
secularists, to change modernity?s course. Chronic low-level economic
stress in a rapidly aging world may be enough. There is good reason to
worry about the fate of elderly boomers with fragile families, limited
savings, and relatively few children to care for them. A younger generation
of workers will soon feel the burden of paying for the care of this massive
older generation. The nursing shortage, already acute, will undoubtedly
worsen, possibly foreshadowing shortages in many other categories of
workers. Real estate values could be threatened by population decline. And
all these demographically tinged issues, and more, will likely become the media?s daily fare.


In such an atmosphere, a new set of social values could
emerge along with a fundamentally new calculation of personal interest.
Modernity itself may come in for criticism even as a new appreciation for
the benefits of marriage and parenting might emerge. A successful
pronatalist policy (if achieved by means of the conventional family rather
than through surrogacy or artificial wombs) would only reinforce the
conservative trend. In that case we will surely find that it is cultural
radicals standing athwart history?s new trend yelling
?Stop!?

Humankind faces three fundamental choices in the years
ahead: at least a partial restoration of traditional social values, a
radical new eugenics, or endless and compounding population decline. For a
long time, this choice may not be an either/or. Divisions will likely
emerge both within and between societies on how to proceed. Some regions
may grow more traditional, others may experiment with radical new social
forms, while still others may continue to shrink. And a great deal will
depend upon an economic future that no one can predict with certainty. In
any case, the social innovations of the modern world are still being
tested, and the outcome is unresolved.
Demographics and the Culture War in Policy Review of February 2005
The article you provided the link to could be seen as one more reason to suppose that Western Civilization has moved from Prof. Carroll Quigley's 'Stage 4' (Age of Conflict) straight to his 'Stage 6' (Decline), skipping over his 'Stage 5' (Universal Empire) in the process - and that 'Stage 7' (Invasion) will almost certainly arrive some time during this century.







Post#9460 at 02-07-2005 12:44 PM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
02-07-2005, 12:44 PM #9460
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

Rhetoric and the Fourth Turning

Rhetorically, I think, we have been in a fourth turning for several years. The following set of rules is posted to illustrate how this has happened. It also explains some of what one finds here. . .

Rules of Neconservative discourse



1. Speak authoritatively. The truth about any issue is obvious to true believers. Admit no room for doubt about anything.

2. Manipulate historical facts to give maximum credit to Republicans at all times. Give them credit for the Cold War (even though the Marshall Plan passed over substantial Republican opposition) and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the work of two Democratic Presidents and Democratic Congressional leadership, which defeated the Southern Democrats? filibuster.) Blame the Democrats for losing Vietnam, even though the majority of the period of active American conflict took place under Republican leadership. Ignore that Democrats have always run lower budget deficits than Republicans.

3. When referring to Democrats, refer to their titles rather than their names whenever possible. This will imply that any claim to authority they have comes only from the position they have somehow managed to acquire, and not from the facts that they are able to marshal in support of their cause. It will also exploit the resentments of less educated Americans, upon whom we depend for victory.

4. Manipulate statistics. If, for instance, you announce you will cut the deficit in half in four years, take a baseline figure that represents an earlier overestimate of what the deficit was going to be, not the actual, smaller deficit the government ran over the last year. Then make over-optimistic economic predictions and specify a figure for the deficit in four years that will represent half of its supposed (but not actual) percentage of GNP. Since you are exaggerating how big the GNP will be four years out, you can more easily claim that you will achieve cutting the deficit in half, measured by its estimated percentage of GNP, even though in dollars it will still be more than half of today?s deficit.

4. (Most important.) Never miss an opportunity to refer contemptuously to an opponent. Our assets in this political struggle are hatred and resentment?and, more importantly, we know it. Liberals and Democrats are used to reining in their feelings and respecting the other side?s point of view, and they tend to rely on facts to make decisions. We must never engage them on their own ground. They cannot win a struggle based on hatred, because they believe hatred should have no place in politics. We cannot win a struggle based on facts, because we have no facts to support our case. Winning isn?t everything?it?s the only thing.
5. Post on every web site, listserve, etc. that you can find?even centrist or liberal ones. Victory depends on spreading the infection of our particular form of discourse as widely as possible. Don?t be deterred if you make opponents angry?be happy. Even this is another step towards victory.
6. Never worry about the consequences of any of our policies. The American people will pay for them.







Post#9461 at 02-07-2005 01:07 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
02-07-2005, 01:07 PM #9461
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Mr. Kaiser, is that your own list, or do you have a link?

Either way, I think it's spot-on.







Post#9462 at 02-07-2005 02:57 PM by Devils Advocate [at joined Nov 2004 #posts 1,834]
---
02-07-2005, 02:57 PM #9462
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
1,834

Re: Away down south in Dixieland!

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
If one wishes to demonstrate that being a Southern Party means something tangible, fine, make your case.
So where it once was the liberal Democrats who got us into wars, now its going to be the conservative Republicans. Not because of conservative versus liberal ideology, but because of regional culture.
Well, this probably goes along way toward explaining Democrats current bitterness and outright loathing of America. Think about it, ever since the New Deal in 1932, a Southern Party has in-effect ran this country! First it was via the Democrats, and then beginning with the rebellion of the "Blue dog" Dixiecrats swinging with Reagan (and culminating with the southerner Newt stealing away the Democrat's forty year hold on Congress), America has solidly remained in southern hands for nearly eighty years, now.

Not bad for a "region" that was utterly destroyed during the Civil War, eh? 8)
A good 2008 electoral strategy will align the West and the Blue States against the South. The South should be (electorally) isolated and conquered. Our winning strategy would have a presidential ticket with Western/Northern candidates, and when I say "South" I mean the Confederate core.







Post#9463 at 02-07-2005 03:47 PM by nonpartisan [at joined Feb 2005 #posts 6]
---
02-07-2005, 03:47 PM #9463
Join Date
Feb 2005
Posts
6

"Liberals and Democrats are used to reining in their feelings and respecting the other side?s point of view, and they tend to rely on facts to make decisions.

Brrrrrrt! I just spit hot coffee across the room. I can't believe how people on the 4T boards continually CONFIRM we are still in a 3T by taking sides in the culture wars. And it's getting worse on these boards, just like in the rest of society. Aren't we supposed to be above that because we recognize it?

I'm sick and tired of liberals demonizing conservatives and vice versa, so I'll demonize both of them. NEITHER the Democrats nor the Republicans in power bear a resemblance to the original ideals of the Founding Fathers. Both are proponents of big government and are trying to drink to unconsciousness at the keg of power.

Small government, personal liberty, avoidance of foreign adventures. Anybody here for that?







Post#9464 at 02-07-2005 03:58 PM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
02-07-2005, 03:58 PM #9464
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

Quote Originally Posted by nonpartisan
"Liberals and Democrats are used to reining in their feelings and respecting the other side?s point of view, and they tend to rely on facts to make decisions.

Brrrrrrt! I just spit hot coffee across the room. I can't believe how people on the 4T boards continually CONFIRM we are still in a 3T by taking sides in the culture wars. And it's getting worse on these boards, just like in the rest of society. Aren't we supposed to be above that because we recognize it?

I'm sick and tired of liberals demonizing conservatives and vice versa, so I'll demonize both of them. NEITHER the Democrats nor the Republicans in power bear a resemblance to the original ideals of the Founding Fathers. Both are proponents of big government and are trying to drink to unconsciousness at the keg of power.

Small government, personal liberty, avoidance of foreign adventures. Anybody here for that?
Dear Nonpartisan:

Will two out of three do?

David K '47







Post#9465 at 02-07-2005 04:04 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
02-07-2005, 04:04 PM #9465
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by nonpartisan
"Liberals and Democrats are used to reining in their feelings and respecting the other side?s point of view, and they tend to rely on facts to make decisions.

Brrrrrrt! I just spit hot coffee across the room. I can't believe how people on the 4T boards continually CONFIRM we are still in a 3T by taking sides in the culture wars. And it's getting worse on these boards, just like in the rest of society. Aren't we supposed to be above that because we recognize it?

I'm sick and tired of liberals demonizing conservatives and vice versa, so I'll demonize both of them. NEITHER the Democrats nor the Republicans in power bear a resemblance to the original ideals of the Founding Fathers. Both are proponents of big government and are trying to drink to unconsciousness at the keg of power.

Small government, personal liberty, avoidance of foreign adventures. Anybody here for that?
Are you planning a government of a few hundred folks to run a country that's the economic and miltary giant of the world? If so, please elaborate.
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.







Post#9466 at 02-07-2005 04:06 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
02-07-2005, 04:06 PM #9466
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2
Quote Originally Posted by nonpartisan
"Liberals and Democrats are used to reining in their feelings and respecting the other side?s point of view, and they tend to rely on facts to make decisions.

Brrrrrrt! I just spit hot coffee across the room. I can't believe how people on the 4T boards continually CONFIRM we are still in a 3T by taking sides in the culture wars. And it's getting worse on these boards, just like in the rest of society. Aren't we supposed to be above that because we recognize it?

I'm sick and tired of liberals demonizing conservatives and vice versa, so I'll demonize both of them. NEITHER the Democrats nor the Republicans in power bear a resemblance to the original ideals of the Founding Fathers. Both are proponents of big government and are trying to drink to unconsciousness at the keg of power.

Small government, personal liberty, avoidance of foreign adventures. Anybody here for that?
Dear Nonpartisan:

Will two out of three do?

David K '47
You'd better select the two you want.
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.







Post#9467 at 02-07-2005 04:07 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
02-07-2005, 04:07 PM #9467
Guest

"Small government, personal liberty, avoidance of foreign adventures. Anybody here for that?"

Sounds pretty partisan Democrat to me. I mean "small" relative to what? And aside from owning an SUV and a private social security account, you can have all the "personal liberty" you want.

The only thing worse, in my book, than a rabid partisan is a rabid partisan who claims to be "nonpartisan."







Post#9468 at 02-07-2005 04:10 PM by nonpartisan [at joined Feb 2005 #posts 6]
---
02-07-2005, 04:10 PM #9468
Join Date
Feb 2005
Posts
6

Will two out of three do?

David K '47


Not if one is a necessary condition for the others to exist.







Post#9469 at 02-07-2005 04:14 PM by nonpartisan [at joined Feb 2005 #posts 6]
---
02-07-2005, 04:14 PM #9469
Join Date
Feb 2005
Posts
6

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
"Small government, personal liberty, avoidance of foreign adventures. Anybody here for that?"

Sounds pretty partisan Democrat to me. I mean "small" relative to what? And aside from owning an SUV and a private social security account, you can have all the "personal liberty" you want.

The only thing worse, in my book, than a rabid partisan is a rabid partisan who claims to be "nonpartisan."
Omigod, now the tenants of the Founding Fathers are partisan democratic. So DA, what does that make you?







Post#9470 at 02-07-2005 04:26 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
02-07-2005, 04:26 PM #9470
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by nonpartisan
Will two out of three do?

David K '47


Not if one is a necessary condition for the others to exist.
You are a libertarian, Mr. np. Just another rigid ideology like the two you are criticizing.

Right on, David K '47.







Post#9471 at 02-07-2005 04:38 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
02-07-2005, 04:38 PM #9471
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by nonpartisan
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
"Small government, personal liberty, avoidance of foreign adventures. Anybody here for that?"

Sounds pretty partisan Democrat to me. I mean "small" relative to what? And aside from owning an SUV and a private social security account, you can have all the "personal liberty" you want.

The only thing worse, in my book, than a rabid partisan is a rabid partisan who claims to be "nonpartisan."
Omigod, now the tenants of the Founding Fathers are partisan democratic. So DA, what does that make you?
Your supposed "nonpartisan" terms are all pretty relative, in my book. And I don't recall seeing any of them listed in the U.S. Constitution, do you? Oh, yeah, Democrats do claim a woman's "right to choose" is in there, but a right for any American, save federal and state employees of course, to choose their own retirement account is not in there.

Go figure, huh? :wink:







Post#9472 at 02-07-2005 04:56 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
02-07-2005, 04:56 PM #9472
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
[Democrats do claim a woman's "right to choose" is in there, but a right for any American, save federal and state employees of course, to choose their own retirement account is not in there.

Go figure, huh? :wink:
Hah! I'm certainly not stopping anyone from opening or putting money into an IRA or Keough account!

BTW, Federal employees hired after 1984, which includes me, are covered under Social Security.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#9473 at 02-07-2005 05:55 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
02-07-2005, 05:55 PM #9473
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Something White, and Something Blue...

Quote Originally Posted by nonpartisan
"Liberals and Democrats are used to reining in their feelings and respecting the other side?s point of view, and they tend to rely on facts to make decisions.

Brrrrrrt! I just spit hot coffee across the room. I can't believe how people on the 4T boards continually CONFIRM we are still in a 3T by taking sides in the culture wars. And it's getting worse on these boards, just like in the rest of society. Aren't we supposed to be above that because we recognize it?

I'm sick and tired of liberals demonizing conservatives and vice versa, so I'll demonize both of them. NEITHER the Democrats nor the Republicans in power bear a resemblance to the original ideals of the Founding Fathers. Both are proponents of big government and are trying to drink to unconsciousness at the keg of power.

Small government, personal liberty, avoidance of foreign adventures. Anybody here for that?
I believe the size and role of government changes as civilization evolves. The Founding Fathers set a good policy for their time, a time when the vast majority of the people lived on the land. Still, each crisis presented problems that needed to be addressed. Each crisis transformed society to address these problems, if not necessarily to solve them for all time.

The problem of slavery had to be addressed. Industrial governments must play a larger role in regulating the economy and developing industry. It was prudent and proper for fascism and communism to be destroyed and contained, respectively.

So, no, 18th Century platforms aren't necessarily perfect for all time.

The question is what major flaws have to be addressed in our time. We have the Red and Blue dogmas flailing at each other. Both groups seem more concerned with clinging to 3T perspectives on the world, than identifying problems which need radical transformation to solve. This may continue until the problems become so crucial they cannot be ignored.

I would agree with you that the modern major parties are more concerned with power and serving corporatism than I would prefer. I would agree that 18th Century values might have much to say to the present, though I believe we must address the future. I can find values in both the Red and Blue platforms that also constructively illuminate flaws in modern society.

Still, the Red, Blue and Founding Father's perspectives must all yield to the nature of the 21st Century. All three value sets are clinging to the past more than addressing the future.

My own intuitions? Not enough emphasis is being given to individual liberties. As ever, the ruling class controlling the means of production has too much influence on government policy. Government should be no larger than necessary, but some problems are global in scope, and will require answers global in scope. Ecology driven collapse of third world economies, corporatist misplaced priorities, and terrorist delivery of weapons of mass destruction are problems which need answers. The Founding Fathers advice on such problems is in my view not sufficient. They were great men. They created great solutions to the problems of their time, as well as flawed compromises that exploded four score and seven years later. They did not at all foresee our time.

We will all have to let go of old thought patterns, and desperately try pragmatic experiments. Come the high, the lessons learned from the desperate pragmatic experiments that worked during the crisis will be carved into stone. A new set of myths shall be written. Centuries hence, reactionaries stuck in the mud of the past will quote saints who today are yet awaiting their trials. The pragmatic and desperate people of our time will become anchors holding back the pragmatic and desperate people of the future. While there are many lessons to be learned from history, the first ought to be that one cannot cling to history. History, inevitably, moves on.

So if you cast distain on those living a turning or two in the past, I shall question your dwelling centuries in the past. I try to look to the future. It isn't easy. I can honor your values. I can agree that your values cast the problems of our time in an interesting light. I might even agree that the ultimate goal ought to be minimal government. Each region ought to police its own. No government or its corporate economic arms should try to exploit other areas. International use of military, political and economic force ought to be limited to prevention of grave human rights violations, rather than protecting and extending the influence of one culture over another.

But if the long term goal ought to be small government and international disengagement, the pragmatic solutions to real and immediate problems won't come from standing still and doing nothing. During the imperialistic age, great wrongs were done. The West created some vast inequalities. Our technological and thus economic, military and political power no longer protect us. As aircraft carriers rendered battleships obsolete, so too will terrorist delivery of weapons of mass destruction invalidate old ideas on military strength and projection of power. We shall need to create a 'soft landing.' Exactly how this is to be achieved, I do not know. I do know that no matter how many valuable answers may be found in the past, no matter how solid and applicable the positive values of the Red, Blue and Founding cultures might be, the answers to the test can't be found in the back of the book. We are going to have to create something new.







Post#9474 at 02-07-2005 06:14 PM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
02-07-2005, 06:14 PM #9474
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

Two out of three

I think anyone who knows me will be able to guess my preferred two are personal liberty and avoiding foreign adventures. Since we have big industry and big finance, we need big government to give the people a chance, and to do necessary income redistribution. Just my opinion, of course.

David K '47







Post#9475 at 02-07-2005 06:20 PM by Devils Advocate [at joined Nov 2004 #posts 1,834]
---
02-07-2005, 06:20 PM #9475
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
1,834

I actually think our government is rather small in some regards. Consider we have only 435 "representatives" in Congress, or 1 rep for every 666,667 people!
Compare that to the more egalitarian French National Assembly, which has 577 representatives in a nation of 63 million. That's one rep for every 108, 580 people. Sounds more "representative" to me.
-----------------------------------------