Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

I wasn't speaking about my neighbors. Most of my neighbors are good people -- tolerant, law-abiding folks who help each other out in a pinch and who don't really give a crap whom I voted for in the last election. I have no doubt that some of them voted for Bush... But you didn't just mention Bush (and, by implication, "Red" America) in your earlier post. You mentioned al-Qaeda, China, and Iran

I said the "Bush Administration, and the America who elected him..."

Correct, and I said "Bush and 'Red' America." I used "Bush" as shorthand for the Administration as a whole, and perhaps that implication wasn't as clear as it should have been.

"The America who elected Bush," strictly speaking, are the 62 million-plus people who voted for him last November (versus the 59 million-plus people who voted for Kerry, and the millions of others who chose neither of the major candidates).

It is certainly within your right to call Bush an intolerant, compassionless, narrow-minded bigot, ma'am.

It certainly is. But those aren't the exact words I would use to describe him. I believe he is incompetent, petty, arrogant, and willfully ignorant of the big issues that need to be faced.

But in doing so, to the point of lumping him in with thugs running al Qaeda, Iran and China insults everyone who voted for the man of their own freewill, including some of your "neighbors".

But I'm not lumping him in with al-Qaeda, Iran and China, Marc. He doesn't subscribe to radical Islam or Chinese totalitarianism. I'm criticizing him for other reasons. I think his policies are bad for America. And I can disagree with my neighbors on whether or not that is true. Why do you see that as an insult? Isn't political give-and-take part of living in America in the first place?

If this is the way you figure to win the hearts and minds of the American people, I would suggest that you will fail, as you are failing, miserably.

How could I succeed?

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Why can't you just be honest here? You fear the Bush Administration, and the America who elected him, far more than you fear al Qaeda, Iran, China, et al.

Actually, I don't particularly fear any of those people or states that you mentioned. I won't give into the ideologies [bigotry, selfishness, and rigid dogma] that bred them, either.

Your point was perfectly clear. You "don't particularly fear" Bush, and the America who elected him (ie., "states"), whose "ideologies" of "bigotry, selfishness, and rigid dogma" have "bred them."

Don't get me wrong here, I appreciate your honesty. But certainly before you can win a real, long-lasting majority in Washington, these intolerant, compassionless, narrow-minded bigoted voters have to become a much smaller minority. That kind of idelogical breeding process is going to take a pretty long time. Like, a really long time.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Don't get me wrong here, I appreciate your honesty. But certainly before you can win a real, long-lasting majority in Washington, these intolerant, compassionless, narrow-minded bigoted voters have to become a much smaller minority. That kind of idelogical breeding process is going to take a pretty long time. Like, a really long time.

You're getting quite a lot of mileage with the "breeding" thing, aren't you? I've noticed that you're very good at picking up certain words and phrases that your debate opponents use, and then altering their meaning just enough so that the poster appears to have a more diabolical intent than the original post would imply.

It's a neat trick. Very clever indeed. And it probably works on some people.

Anyway --

You just brought up the "winning elections" goal again. Well, yes, if political power were truly all I was interested in, your strategy may or may not work in the long run.

But I want something bigger. I want a functional, financially solvent, forward-thinking, secure, tolerant, and compassionate America.

And I'm actually hoping to persuade some Bush voters to turn away from his agenda in 2006. No breeding involved here; just an exchange of ideas.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

You're getting quite a lot of mileage with the "breeding" thing, aren't you? I've noticed that you're very good at picking up certain words and phrases that your debate opponents use, and then altering their meaning just enough so that the poster appears to have a more diabolical intent than the original post would imply.

It's a neat trick. Very clever indeed. And it probably works on some people.

You're the one who used the word, in the context of how you view cultural ideology. I did not alter the meaning of how you used the word at all. And it is, by definition, quite impossible for liberals to have anything but the best intentions at heart at all times. Tolerance, compassion, and free thought has, after all, been "bred" into you all, as you clearly confirmed.

Unlike us Reds.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

And then there's always Mr. Ad Hominem.

You'd think that after thirty years, they'd try to find some new material. :lol:

And then there's always Ms. Snobby, whose snide little commentary is a regular feature at 4T.com. :lol:

Twit. You would think for somebody who claims to be the Devil's Advocate, you could come up with something wittier. Shoulda read the fine print, pal. I think, like Steve Jackson before you, you did a deal with "a" devil, not "THE" Devil.

Wally.

Wally, thanks for the back-up here.

I got into a snit the other day because I'm tired of the attacks on people who were sincerely opposed to the Vietnam War and decided they had something to say about it.

Likewise, I have opinions about things that are going on in the world right now, and I'm going to damn well exercise my God-given right to speak out about them. If the political opposition can't do any better than put up straw men, throw out red herrings, or engage in personal attacks, then it seems more and more likely to me that I'm getting somewhat closer to the truth.

You're welcome.

Wally.

I go for my walk most nights in Carver MA, a town in a sort of rural no man's land between suburban Boston's bedroom towns and Cape Cod's tourism. We used to be about cranberries, but the commuter train now runs close on one side, and we've always had a tourist trap or two on the other. Anyway, in taking my walk, I pass by two former farmhouses. The inhabitants no longer farm, but they have very big back yards. I mean, really big back yards. Someday, the lots will be subdivided, I'm sure.

Both families keep dogs. In the process of doing my walk, I set off the dogs. Inevitably. Doesn't matter how many times I wave at the humans, the dogs think it is their job to bark. Y'know, they are right. Time was, in a rural area, a rifle over the fireplace and a dog wandering the lot was a state of the art security system. Now, even in Carver, one house has a fenced in enclosure, where the dogs can reach only a small portion of their owner's land. The other has an electronic fence, where a similarly sized patch of land is divided with radio markers triggering the dog's shock collars.

From what I understand of animal territory, the smaller a territory you limit an animal to, the more fiercely he will defend it. Thus, with an area of land available that ought to keep a dog reasonably happy, they end up barking a lot. And thus, every time I do my walk, I find myself contemplating how blue zone laws appropriate to suburban and urban areas don't necessarily work ideally in rural areas.

Or vice versa. In a truly rural area, a dog running free and a rifle over the fireplace might still be an adequate security system. The dog was bred to let the humans know someone is coming. Works less well in an urban environment. One size does not fit all.

This isn't to say I can resolve America's gun debate, but it's an illustration of my perspective on the Red / Blue cultural divide. Laws which reflect the best efforts of sincere people can work well in one place, but not another. Values which produce good results in one area might conflict with values which produce good results elsewhere.

And people don't change values which work in their every day life.

We don't have Red states and Blue states. We have Blue cities and Red rural areas. California might have a reputation as a Blue state, but look at a red / blue map by county. California may have more urban Blue votes than Red, but no way could one consider the whole state Blue.

Urban and suburban cultures just change faster than rural cultures. The need for change is greater. Thus, tradition and age old spiritual rules have to face greater challenges brought on by new technology and new life styles.

I wish it was as easy as decentralizing government. I wish it was as easy as letting the farmer let his dog loose, and keep his rifle over the fireplace. But, no, both cultures not only know what is best for them, but want to force what is best for them on the other culture. Both know their own values to be correct, and the other's values to be different, and it somehow follows that the other's values are somehow evil.

It is evil to confine a small dog in a tight space. He is meant to run free. It is evil to allow a dog constrained to a tight space to potentially get in reach of children. Such angry and dangerous creatures must be restrained, or someone will get hurt. We have a problem in that human territories, and thus canine territories, are shrinking faster than dogs are evolving to adapt to this change. More people, less land. Depending on the size of the territory currently available in a given area, the obvious solutions vary. And yet, the problem isn't addressed in terms of the needs of the dog. Too often, Red and Blue people are too busy demonizing one another to try to solve problems.

Which makes me very displeased by "conversations" such as we see above between Kiff and the Devil's Advocate. I'm not really upset at Kiff. I see hints that she might genuinely be attempting to communicate. Thing is, if you assume an antagonistic attitude, if you assume that the opposition perspectives are unfounded, if you assume the opposition values cannot work, meaningful discussion cannot take place.

I don't think a lot of Bush. I sincerely believe he made some mistakes. Still, I don't find it necessary to think him (and his advisers) stupid or evil. It would be really nice if the Middle East were to transition from autocratic to modern governments while the rest of the world had stable oil prices. It is not necessary to assume the administration is collectively stupid, evil, naive, neo-nazi, dictatorial, or whatever. They were attempting the necessary. They just made the mistake of listening to intelligence that told them what they wanted to hear. There are WMDs. The people will welcome us as liberators. The US armed forces can do the job with a minimal number of men... The administration not evil, so long as they pick up the lessons learned. They might pretend to have no regrets. They might pretend that no mistakes were made. They might spin their way to the highest poll ratings they can achieve, for all I care. They must not fool themselves. They must not believe the next set of lies told by the next bunch of wannabe rulers of the next country that needs to be nation built beyond recognition.

I suppose I ought to spend equal time flaming at the Democrats, but they haven't produced a firm enough platform to flame at. I am sick of their attack tactics. I am tired of values debates, and demonization. The way to beat the Republicans is to have a better set of ideas, and a leader with the charisma to project them. The Democratic Party leadership seems more comfortable with business as usual than new ideas and charisma.

Sorry to vent. I'm the wannabe radical. I believe Fourth Turnings are driven by technological change. The standard template of the Agricultural Age is obsolete. We haven't got a perfect new template yet, and will not so long as technology keeps advancing. Autocratic rule isn't flexible enough for modern times. The monarchists, Fascists and Communists have to some extent learned this the hard way. This crisis, it may be the turn of the Middle East, Africa and South Asia to deal with major cultural upheaval. From a nice safe abstract distance, it is easy to say that free governments and free markets will triumph in the end, but I have no reason to believe the struggles will be any easier than when shaking off monarchy, Fascism or Communism. A transition from autocratic to modern government is not easy.

And this is not purely because dictators are evil, or that fundamentalists seeking to keep ancient cultures alive are necessarily evil. OK, I do distrust dictators and fundamentalists. Still, cultures will cling to what they have been. Politicians will cling to power. Religious people will cling to values. Everyone will cling to ancient and traditional ways of life. We should not expect people to let go, to leap into the unknown, without something better to hope for, or without their old world being reduced to ashes.

In a Fourth Turning, they will cling to the old in vain. In a Fourth Turning, the rug comes out from under all of it. We might hope, as in the magician's trick, that one can pull out the rug without any of the furniture on the rug toppling over. I don't expect it. This would be expecting too much of history.

It is quite impossible for Blues to think of Reds as anything other than "intolerant, compassionless, narrow-minded bigoted voters." It is now such a habit of mindset as to be a tenet of faith. Thus this article of faith is not to be questioned or re-considered by those of the Deaniac and moveon.org persuasion, which is indeed the base of the Democratic Party.

And they all will take this unimpeachable article of faith with them to their graves.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I don't think a lot of Bush. I sincerely believe he made some mistakes. Still, I don't find it necessary to think him (and his advisers) stupid or evil. It would be really nice if the Middle East were to transition from autocratic to modern governments while the rest of the world had stable oil prices. It is not necessary to assume the administration is collectively stupid, evil, naive, neo-nazi, dictatorial, or whatever. They were attempting the necessary. They just made the mistake of listening to intelligence that told them what they wanted to hear. There are WMDs. The people will welcome us as liberators. The US armed forces can do the job with a minimal number of men... The administration not evil, so long as they pick up the lessons learned. They might pretend to have no regrets. They might pretend that no mistakes were made. They might spin their way to the highest poll ratings they can achieve, for all I care. They must not fool themselves. They must not believe the next set of lies told by the next bunch of wannabe rulers of the next country that needs to be nation built beyond recognition.

If the war in Iraq really is necessary, if the Bush foreign policy really is about bringing political and economic liberalization to the Arab-Muslim world, if the "war on terror" really is as important as they keep telling us it is, a responsible president would seek to unify the country around this cause, and that would mean pursuing a moderate, consensus-based domestic agenda, and reaching out to his political opponents. It would mean telling both the peacenik left and Christian right to sit down and shut up. This president has done anything but that. Whether we are talking about his craven disregard of treaties, his relentless nomination of hard right judges (and now likely justice[s] to the supreme court), his tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, his assault on social security, his unwillingness to do anything about the threat of global warming, energy indepenence, or the tens of millions of Americans without health care, his apparent willingness to vandalize the constitution and permanently disenfranchise millions of Americans, his efforts to roll back enviornmental regulations, worker rights, and abortion rights, his clear endorsement of the use of torture abroad and his broad rollback of civil liberties at home, his unwillingness to be forthcoming to the American people about the costs and likely duration of the war in Iraq, his underhanded use of vengeance on his political opponents, or any of his other various wrongs, Mr. Bush has done almost everything in his power to alienate potential allies and divide the country down the middle in a time of war. It is contemptible and unpardonable.

If Bush had been Blair we wouldn't be having this conversation now.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

It is quite impossible for Blues to think of Reds as anything other than "intolerant, compassionless, narrow-minded bigoted voters." It is now such a habit of mindset as to be a tenet of faith. Thus this article of faith is not to be questioned or re-considered by those of the Deaniac and moveon.org persuasion, which is indeed the base of the Democratic Party.

And they all will take this unimpeachable article of faith with them to their graves.

And I can't help but read the above as an unimpeachable article of faith. The difference is that I attribute your views to you personally, rather than to all Reds. You seem to assume all those who have different values from yours, all Blues, are as closed minded as you.

Granted there are Deaniacs and moveons on the Blue side, but there are people like the Devil's Advocates on the Red side. Because extreme members of both parties are incapable of meaningful discussion, because some extremists have closed minds, it does not follow that all Blues or all Reds are equally closed minded. Web forums like this one attract an unreasonable number of people from the fringes. I am just disappointed that so much bandwidth is wasted spreading hate, so little on finding fixes to difficult problems.

Originally Posted by Milo

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I don't think a lot of Bush. I sincerely believe he made some mistakes. Still, I don't find it necessary to think him (and his advisers) stupid or evil. It would be really nice if the Middle East were to transition from autocratic to modern governments while the rest of the world had stable oil prices. It is not necessary to assume the administration is collectively stupid, evil, naive, neo-nazi, dictatorial, or whatever. They were attempting the necessary. They just made the mistake of listening to intelligence that told them what they wanted to hear. There are WMDs. The people will welcome us as liberators. The US armed forces can do the job with a minimal number of men... The administration not evil, so long as they pick up the lessons learned. They might pretend to have no regrets. They might pretend that no mistakes were made. They might spin their way to the highest poll ratings they can achieve, for all I care. They must not fool themselves. They must not believe the next set of lies told by the next bunch of wannabe rulers of the next country that needs to be nation built beyond recognition.

If the war in Iraq really is necessary, if the Bush foreign policy really is about bringing political and economic liberalization to the Arab-Muslim world, if the "war on terror" really is as important as they keep telling us it is, a responsible president would seek to unify the country around this cause, and that would mean pursuing a moderate, consensus-based domestic agenda, and reaching out to his political opponents. It would mean telling both the peacenik left and Christian right to sit down and shut up. This president has done anything but that. Whether we are talking about his craven disregard of treaties, his relentless nomination of hard right judges (and now likely justice[s] to the supreme court), his tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, his assault on social security, his unwillingness to do anything about the threat of global warming, energy indepenence, or the tens of millions of Americans without health care, his apparent willingness to vandalize the constitution and permanently disenfranchise millions of Americans, his efforts to roll back enviornmental regulations, worker rights, and abortion rights, his clear endorsement of the use of torture abroad and his broad rollback of civil liberties at home, his unwillingness to be forthcoming to the American people about the costs and likely duration of the war in Iraq, his underhanded use of vengeance on his political opponents, or any of his other various wrongs, Mr. Bush has done almost everything in his power to alienate potential allies and divide the country down the middle in a time of war. It is contemptible and unpardonable.

If Bush had been Blair we wouldn't be having this conversation now.

Well said.

Unlike many posters here I don't think a 4T means we have to have a liberal as President. But I do believe that a conservative 4T President would have to do all the things you say in order to rally the country around a Crisis war he feels is deadly necessary. That Bush hasn't done this suggests that we're either still 3T... or that we're 4T, but the Crisis will mostly be an internal conflict brought about by what Bush is attempting to do.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I go for my walk most nights in Carver MA, a town in a sort of rural no man's land between suburban Boston's bedroom towns and Cape Cod's tourism. We used to be about cranberries, but the commuter train now runs close on one side, and we've always had a tourist trap or two on the other. Anyway, in taking my walk, I pass by two former farmhouses. The inhabitants no longer farm, but they have very big back yards. I mean, really big back yards. Someday, the lots will be subdivided, I'm sure.

Both families keep dogs. In the process of doing my walk, I set off the dogs. Inevitably. Doesn't matter how many times I wave at the humans, the dogs think it is their job to bark. Y'know, they are right. Time was, in a rural area, a rifle over the fireplace and a dog wandering the lot was a state of the art security system. Now, even in Carver, on house has a fenced in enclosure, where the dogs can reach only a small portion of their owner's land. The other has an electronic fence, where a similarly sized patch of land is divided with radio markers triggering the dog's shock collars.

From what I understand of animal territory, the smaller a territory you limit an animal to, the more fiercely he will defend it. Thus, with an area of land available that ought to keep a dog reasonably happy, they end up barking a lot. And thus, every time I do my walk, I find myself contemplating how blue zone laws appropriate to suburban and urban areas don't necessarily work ideally in rural areas.

Or vice versa. In a truly rural area, a dog running free and a rifle over the fireplace might still be an adequate security system. The dog was bred to let the humans know someone is coming. Works less well in an urban environment. One size does not fit all.

This isn't to say I can resolve America's gun debate, but it's an illustration of my perspective on the Red / Blue cultural divide. Laws which reflect the best efforts of sincere people can work well in one place, but not another. Values which produce good results in one area might conflict with values which produce good results elsewhere.

And people don't change values which work in their every day life.

We don't have Red states and Blue states. We have Blue cities and Red rural areas. California might have a reputation as a Blue state, but look at a red / blue map by county. California may have more urban Blue votes than Red, but no way could one consider the whole state Blue.

Urban and suburban cultures just change faster than rural cultures. The need for change is greater. Thus, tradition and age old spiritual rules have to face greater challenges brought on by new technology and new life styles.

I wish it was as easy as decentralizing government. I wish it was as easy as letting the farmer let his dog loose, and keep his rifle over the fireplace. But, no, both cultures not only know what is best for them, but want to force what is best for them on the other culture. Both know their own values to be correct, and the other's values to be different, and it somehow follows that the other's values are somehow evil.

It is evil to confine a small dog in a tight space. He is meant to run free. It is evil to allow a dog constrained to a tight space to potentially get in reach of children. Such angry and dangerous creatures must be restrained, or someone will get hurt. We have a problem in that human territories, and thus canine territories, are shrinking faster than dogs are evolving to adapt to this change. More people, less land. Depending on the size of the territory currently available in a given area, the obvious solutions vary. And yet, the problem isn't addressed in terms of the needs of the dog. Too often, Red and Blue people are too busy demonizing one another to try to solve problems.

Which makes me very displeased by "conversations" such as we see above between Kiff and the Devil's Advocate. I'm not really upset at Kiff. I see hints that she might genuinely be attempting to communicate. Thing is, if you assume an antagonistic attitude, if you assume that the opposition perspectives are unfounded, if you assume the opposition values cannot work, meaningful discussion cannot take place.

I don't think a lot of Bush. I sincerely believe he made some mistakes. Still, I don't find it necessary to think him (and his advisers) stupid or evil. It would be really nice if the Middle East were to transition from autocratic to modern governments while the rest of the world had stable oil prices. It is not necessary to assume the administration is collectively stupid, evil, naive, neo-nazi, dictatorial, or whatever. They were attempting the necessary. They just made the mistake of listening to intelligence that told them what they wanted to hear. There are WMDs. The people will welcome us as liberators. The US armed forces can do the job with a minimal number of men... The administration not evil, so long as they pick up the lessons learned. They might pretend to have no regrets. They might pretend that no mistakes were made. They might spin their way to the highest poll ratings they can achieve, for all I care. They must not fool themselves. They must not believe the next set of lies told by the next bunch of wannabe rulers of the next country that needs to be nation built beyond recognition.

I suppose I ought to spend equal time flaming at the Democrats, but they haven't produced a firm enough platform to flame at. I am sick of their attack tactics. I am tired of values debates, and demonization. The way to beat the Republicans is to have a better set of ideas, and a leader with the charisma to project them. The Democratic Party leadership seems more comfortable with business as usual than new ideas and charisma.

Sorry to vent. I'm the wannabe radical. I believe Fourth Turnings are driven by technological change. The standard template of the Agricultural Age is obsolete. We haven't got a perfect new template yet, and will not so long as technology keeps advancing. Autocratic rule isn't flexible enough for modern times. The monarchists, Fascists and Communists have to some extent learned this the hard way. This crisis, it may be the turn of the Middle East, Africa and South Asia to deal with major cultural upheaval. From a nice safe abstract distance, it is easy to say that free governments and free markets will triumph in the end, but I have no reason to believe the struggles will be any easier than when shaking off monarchy, Fascism or Communism. A transition from autocratic to modern government is not easy.

And this is not purely because dictators are evil, or that fundamentalists seeking to keep ancient cultures alive are necessarily evil. OK, I do distrust dictators and fundamentalists. Still, cultures will cling to what they have been. Politicians will cling to power. Religious people will cling to values. Everyone will cling to ancient and traditional ways of life. We should not expect people to let go, to leap into the unknown, without something better to hope for, or without their old world being reduced to ashes.

In a Fourth Turning, they will cling to the old in vain. In a Fourth Turning, the rug comes out from under all of it. We might hope, as in the magician's trick, that one can pull out the rug without any of the furniture on the rug toppling over. I don't expect it. This would be expecting too much of history.

Neat anology, and post.

Note: We Poodles resent being labeled politically. We're actually hunters turned domestic. Our only agendas are attention and food. It's not our fault that we're so damn cute...

Wally.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

It is quite impossible for Blues to think of Reds as anything other than "intolerant, compassionless, narrow-minded bigoted voters." It is now such a habit of mindset as to be a tenet of faith. Thus this article of faith is not to be questioned or re-considered by those of the Deaniac and moveon.org persuasion, which is indeed the base of the Democratic Party.

And they all will take this unimpeachable article of faith with them to their graves.

BButler 54 tries to write an intelligent and reasoned post, and this is your response?

As for unimpeachable articles of faith, there are a lot of classical conservatives like me who think statements like yours are just nuts.

Perhaps both the Republican and Democratic parties (as they now exist) will be casualties of the 4T. Political parties of both conservative and liberal inclinations will replace them. But I don't think that extremist elements of either side will find a home in them. Survival, not ideology, will be the ethos. We Boomers will be the most hated generation in memory- and very few will wish to re-live the current hateful dialog.

Wally.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Milo

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I don't think a lot of Bush. I sincerely believe he made some mistakes. Still, I don't find it necessary to think him (and his advisers) stupid or evil. It would be really nice if the Middle East were to transition from autocratic to modern governments while the rest of the world had stable oil prices. It is not necessary to assume the administration is collectively stupid, evil, naive, neo-nazi, dictatorial, or whatever. They were attempting the necessary. They just made the mistake of listening to intelligence that told them what they wanted to hear. There are WMDs. The people will welcome us as liberators. The US armed forces can do the job with a minimal number of men... The administration not evil, so long as they pick up the lessons learned. They might pretend to have no regrets. They might pretend that no mistakes were made. They might spin their way to the highest poll ratings they can achieve, for all I care. They must not fool themselves. They must not believe the next set of lies told by the next bunch of wannabe rulers of the next country that needs to be nation built beyond recognition.

If the war in Iraq really is necessary, if the Bush foreign policy really is about bringing political and economic liberalization to the Arab-Muslim world, if the "war on terror" really is as important as they keep telling us it is, a responsible president would seek to unify the country around this cause, and that would mean pursuing a moderate, consensus-based domestic agenda, and reaching out to his political opponents. It would mean telling both the peacenik left and Christian right to sit down and shut up. This president has done anything but that. Whether we are talking about his craven disregard of treaties, his relentless nomination of hard right judges (and now likely justice[s] to the supreme court), his tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, his assault on social security, his unwillingness to do anything about the threat of global warming, energy indepenence, or the tens of millions of Americans without health care, his apparent willingness to vandalize the constitution and permanently disenfranchise millions of Americans, his efforts to roll back enviornmental regulations, worker rights, and abortion rights, his clear endorsement of the use of torture abroad and his broad rollback of civil liberties at home, his unwillingness to be forthcoming to the American people about the costs and likely duration of the war in Iraq, his underhanded use of vengeance on his political opponents, or any of his other various wrongs, Mr. Bush has done almost everything in his power to alienate potential allies and divide the country down the middle in a time of war. It is contemptible and unpardonable.

If Bush had been Blair we wouldn't be having this conversation now.

Well said.

Unlike many posters here I don't think a 4T means we have to have a liberal as President. But I do believe that a conservative 4T President would have to do all the things you say in order to rally the country around a Crisis war he feels is deadly necessary. That Bush hasn't done this suggests that we're either still 3T... or that we're 4T, but the Crisis will mostly be an internal conflict brought about by what Bush is attempting to do.

It might also be said that if Bush had been an *effective* asshole, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all, either.

Wally.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Milo

If the war in Iraq really is necessary, if the Bush foreign policy really is about bringing political and economic liberalization to the Arab-Muslim world, if the "war on terror" really is as important as they keep telling us it is, a responsible president would seek to unify the country around this cause, and that would mean pursuing a moderate, consensus-based domestic agenda, and reaching out to his political opponents. It would mean telling both the peacenik left and Christian right to sit down and shut up. This president has done anything but that. Whether we are talking about his craven disregard of treaties, his relentless nomination of hard right judges (and now likely justice[s] to the supreme court), his tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, his assault on social security, his unwillingness to do anything about the threat of global warming, energy independence, or the tens of millions of Americans without health care, his apparent willingness to vandalize the constitution and permanently disenfranchise millions of Americans, his efforts to roll back environmental regulations, worker rights, and abortion rights, his clear endorsement of the use of torture abroad and his broad rollback of civil liberties at home, his unwillingness to be forthcoming to the American people about the costs and likely duration of the war in Iraq, his underhanded use of vengeance on his political opponents, or any of his other various wrongs, Mr. Bush has done almost everything in his power to alienate potential allies and divide the country down the middle in a time of war. It is contemptible and unpardonable.

If Bush had been Blair we wouldn't be having this conversation now.

Well said.

Unlike many posters here I don't think a 4T means we have to have a liberal as President. But I do believe that a conservative 4T President would have to do all the things you say in order to rally the country around a Crisis war he feels is deadly necessary. That Bush hasn't done this suggests that we're either still 3T... or that we're 4T, but the Crisis will mostly be an internal conflict brought about by what Bush is attempting to do.

Milo, OK, I'm not going to defend Bush. He got into power on the shoulders of Red values and corporatist money, and he dances with who brought him. It is possible to assume some genuine belief in Red values and power politics rather than assume he is stupid and / or evil. That said, I can echo most of your displeasure regarding his policies. I'd agree that a 4T president ought to be building a consensus in the middle rather than exploiting disunity. I'm not saying Bush is correct, or that I don't disagree with much of what he does. I just don't find it necessary to demonize him, or his entire administration, as evil or stupid.

Roadbldr, whether a 4T president has to be 'liberal' or not depends a lot on one's definition of 'liberal.' If one assumes that liberalism is locked forever into the mold of the New Deal through Great Society, no way. 4Ts are not about resetting the clock to the way things were in the previous cycle. The major lessons, last time around, were a need for governments to regulate the economy, and a need to contain expansionist autocratic cultures. These lessons are still to some extent valid. This does not mean there are no problems with the Military Industrial Complex as currently implemented.

I do believe problems exist that will need to be addressed. We have a division of wealth. If this is an important part of the crisis, the solution will involve moderating the gap, not championing the wealthy. Population growth is putting major stress on resources and the environment. If this is an important part of the crisis, a long term ecological perspective will be part of the solution. Ethnic strife is bubbling up all over the world. In addition to addressing the economic and ecological underlying causes of these conflicts, tolerance, human rights and understanding are likely thrusts.

Thus, 'progressive' or 'radical' might better be part of the Grey Champion's job description, rather than 'liberal' as defined by 20th Century practitioners. At any rate, from my perspective, Bush ain't it. I have trouble seeing a Champion with the necessary values bubbling up through the Republican party.

This isn't to say I abhor Red values. Religious people can make good neighbors, so long as they aren't attempting to use the government to force everyone to live by their values. I just see the international issues that seem ready to explode as having Blue solutions. Thus, a Champion ready to address these issues is apt to be tainted a Bluish shade of Grey.

This assumes the Champion will be American. I am growing more dubious about this assumption. We are the power that benefits most from the status quo. Traditionally, such powers resist change, try to prevent the solution of problems that must be solved.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

We are the power that benefits most from the status quo. Traditionally, such powers resist change, try to prevent the solution of problems that must be solved.

However, as the last 4T shows, being a 'force for change' does not necessarily guarantee victory. (As Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan could both testify - as they were 'forces for change' from the pre-4T status quo, but advocated some different kinds of changes from either the United States or the Soviet Union, and ended up losing everything.) By the same token, being a 'status quo' power does not guarantee that your society will be completely destroyed, with no chance for recovery ever. (As Britain, which was the status quo power going into the last 4T - along with France - can also testify.)

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

We are the power that benefits most from the status quo. Traditionally, such powers resist change, try to prevent the solution of problems that must be solved.

However, as the last 4T shows, being a 'force for change' does not necessarily guarantee victory. (As Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan could both testify - as they were 'forces for change' from the pre-4T status quo, but advocated some different kinds of changes from either the United States or the Soviet Union, and ended up losing everything.) By the same token, being a 'status quo' power does not guarantee that your society will be completely destroyed, with no chance for recovery ever. (As Britain, which was the status quo power going into the last 4T - along with France - can also testify.)

It depends on what one perceives the change to be. During the Agricultural Age, and right up on to the machine gun, war was cost effective. At any give point in European history, there was at least one power or alliance that thought it should try to acquire more land by force whenever its economy was in a decent shape to do so. From my perspective, one major lesson learned by the expansionist military powers of World War II was that war of aggression was no longer cost effective. A paper was written before World War I saying that. No one believed the author. They fought the World Wars anyway. The twin lessons were for the democracies, that aggressor powers had to be contained, and for the aggressor powers, that aggression isn't such a good idea.

I don't see it as a radical new idea that Hitler tried to conquer his neighbors. Autocratic powers from my perspective are of the past. Democracy is of the future. That the democracies (with help from the Soviet Union) triumphed is progress. Hitler was the conservative, closer to the autocratic Agricultural Age past. Churchill and FDR were the progressives, championing human rights, democracy, and carrying forward Enlightenment ideas. The transforming ideas of the prior crises were once more extended.

So it would depend on your view of the arrow of progress. If you think Fascism was progress, fine. I see the world's cultures as transitioning from the autocratic, agricultural, religious pattern of, say, the Roman Empire and its ilk, towards a yet to be polished and finalized pattern where fewer people live on the land, human rights and democracy moderate the power of the ruling elites, and the absolute values of classical religious Truth are moderated by scientific observation, with a notion that the machinery of church and state serve the People, not the other way around.

A lot of people don't see this arrow of progress, or claim it is only visible with 20 20 hindsight. Not true. Look at each crisis, who wins, who looses, and how the cultures change. S&H provide a good feel for the rhythm of change. One has to look elsewhere to see the forces driving change, and the direction the world is moving.

Some do need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

You're getting quite a lot of mileage with the "breeding" thing, aren't you? I've noticed that you're very good at picking up certain words and phrases that your debate opponents use, and then altering their meaning just enough so that the poster appears to have a more diabolical intent than the original post would imply.

It's a neat trick. Very clever indeed. And it probably works on some people.

You're the one who used the word, in the context of how you view cultural ideology.

Well, I suppose I could have used a phrase like "brought forth" or "produced," but that's the word that came to mind at the time.

I did not alter the meaning of how you used the word at all.

I got the impression that you were using a more literal definition, meaning that one side would "outbreed" the other by sheer numbers, most likely through births. If I was mistaken, I apologize.

And it is, by definition, quite impossible for liberals to have anything but the best intentions at heart at all times. Tolerance, compassion, and free thought has, after all, been "bred" into you all, as you clearly confirmed.

Unlike us Reds.

What do you believe are Red values? How do they differ from Blue?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Laws which reflect the best efforts of sincere people can work well in one place, but not another. Values which produce good results in one area might conflict with values which produce good results elsewhere.

And people don't change values which work in their every day life.

True enough.

Which makes me very displeased by "conversations" such as we see above between Kiff and the Devil's Advocate. I'm not really upset at Kiff. I see hints that she might genuinely be attempting to communicate. Thing is, if you assume an antagonistic attitude, if you assume that the opposition perspectives are unfounded, if you assume the opposition values cannot work, meaningful discussion cannot take place.

I'm trying to work on it. I defined what I value, and I just asked Marc what he values. Last week I asked Andy '85 a similar question. I'm trying to get to the bottom of where our differences really lie.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

It is quite impossible for Blues to think of Reds as anything other than "intolerant, compassionless, narrow-minded bigoted voters." It is now such a habit of mindset as to be a tenet of faith. Thus this article of faith is not to be questioned or re-considered by those of the Deaniac and moveon.org persuasion, which is indeed the base of the Democratic Party.

And they all will take this unimpeachable article of faith with them to their graves.

You don't know that for a fact. Please answer my question.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

During the Agricultural Age, and right up on to the machine gun, war was cost effective. At any give point in European history, there was at least one power or alliance that thought it should try to acquire more land by force whenever its economy was in a decent shape to do so. From my perspective, one major lesson learned by the expansionist military powers of World War II was that war of aggression was no longer cost effective.

Which is an idea that has been dawning on me for the past few months -- and which may partially explain why the invasion of Iraq isn't working out quite as well as its planners had hoped.

A paper was written before World War I saying that. No one believed the author. They fought the World Wars anyway.

:oops: My ignorance is showing here. What paper was that, and where can I read it?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

We are the power that benefits most from the status quo. Traditionally, such powers resist change, try to prevent the solution of problems that must be solved.

However, as the last 4T shows, being a 'force for change' does not necessarily guarantee victory. (As Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan could both testify - as they were 'forces for change' from the pre-4T status quo, but advocated some different kinds of changes from either the United States or the Soviet Union, and ended up losing everything.) By the same token, being a 'status quo' power does not guarantee that your society will be completely destroyed, with no chance for recovery ever. (As Britain, which was the status quo power going into the last 4T - along with France - can also testify.)

It depends on what one perceives the change to be. During the Agricultural Age, and right up on to the machine gun, war was cost effective. At any give point in European history, there was at least one power or alliance that thought it should try to acquire more land by force whenever its economy was in a decent shape to do so. From my perspective, one major lesson learned by the expansionist military powers of World War II was that war of aggression was no longer cost effective. A paper was written before World War I saying that. No one believed the author. They fought the World Wars anyway. The twin lessons were for the democracies, that aggressor powers had to be contained, and for the aggressor powers, that aggression isn't such a good idea.

I don't see it as a radical new idea that Hitler tried to conquer his neighbors. Autocratic powers from my perspective are of the past. Democracy is of the future. That the democracies (with help from the Soviet Union) triumphed is progress. Hitler was the conservative, closer to the autocratic Agricultural Age past. Churchill and FDR were the progressives, championing human rights, democracy, and carrying forward Enlightenment ideas. The transforming ideas of the prior crises were once more extended.

So it would depend on your view of the arrow of progress. If you think Fascism was progress, fine. I see the world's cultures as transitioning from the autocratic, agricultural, religious pattern of, say, the Roman Empire and its ilk, towards a yet to be polished and finalized pattern where fewer people live on the land, human rights and democracy moderate the power of the ruling elites, and the absolute values of classical religious Truth are moderated by scientific observation, with a notion that the machinery of church and state serve the People, not the other way around.

A lot of people don't see this arrow of progress, or claim it is only visible with 20 20 hindsight. Not true. Look at each crisis, who wins, who looses, and how the cultures change. S&H provide a good feel for the rhythm of change. One has to look elsewhere to see the forces driving change, and the direction the world is moving.

Some do need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

I was speaking of how each major power saw it's own role during the last 4T, whether or not said view was right. As Britain and France were primarily interested in holding on to their colonial empires and their pre-4T pre-eminence in world affairs, they would most certainly qualify under my definition as 'status quo powers'.

In the case of the Axis, they saw themselves as 'agents of change' in that they were seeking to topple the old international order by force - to their own advantage. However, as you did above, it is easy to give the lie to such claims on their part, simply by looking at how they went about the matter, and what their ideological basis for acting was.

The interesting thing about both the United States and the Soviet Union is that during the entire first part of the 4T (until 1941, in fact), both pursued their concepts of meaningful social change in a very introspective (dare I say 'isolationist'?) way which led both to all but turn their backs on world affairs, except in their respective 'near abroads' - until they were each attacked, thus gaining carte blanche (at least in their own eyes) to spread their respective concepts of how to change and reform any and every society within their respective reach - including the defeated 'false change agents' and the old status quo powers, who's part in the final 4T victory was Pyrrhic in nature.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

A paper was written before World War I saying that. No one believed the author. They fought the World Wars anyway.

:oops: My ignorance is showing here. What paper was that, and where can I read it?

Ach... I remember reading about the paper, I think it was in Barbara Tuchman's Guns of August, covering the beginning of World War I. Alas, I cannot remember off hand the name of author or article. If I'm in the mood over the next couple of days, I'll skim the book.

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

The interesting thing about both the United States and the Soviet Union is that during the entire first part of the 4T (until 1941, in fact), both pursued their concepts of meaningful social change in a very introspective (dare I say 'isolationist'?) way which led both to all but turn their backs on world affairs, except in their respective 'near abroads' - until they were each attacked, thus gaining carte blanche (at least in their own eyes) to spread their respective concepts of how to change and reform any and every society within their respective reach - including the defeated 'false change agents' and the old status quo powers, who's part in the final 4T victory was Pyrrhic in nature.

I'd agree that the US and USSR wanted to focus internally, but I'd downplay the idea that neither power knew what was coming. Let me quote a few paragraphs from the 1941 State of the Union, Jan 6, 1941, written 11 months before Pearl Harbor. This speech is primarily a justification for abandoning isolationism. It is remembered primarily not for the policies it announced, but for the moral justifications at the end, the Four Freedoms.

Originally Posted by FDR

Our national policy is this:

First, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to all-inclusive national defense.

Secondly, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to full support of all those resolute people everywhere who are resisting aggression and are thereby keeping war away from our hemisphere. By this support we express our determination that the democratic cause shall prevail, and we strengthen the defense and the security of our own nation.

Third, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to the proposition that principles of morality and considerations for our own security will never permit us to acquiesce in a peace dictated by aggressors and sponsored by appeasers. We know that enduring peace cannot be bought at the cost of other people's freedom.

In the recent national election there was no substantial difference between the two great parties in respect to that national policy. No issue was fought out on this line before the American electorate. And today it is abundantly evident that American citizens everywhere are demanding and supporting speedy and complete action in recognition of obvious danger.

Therefore, the immediate need is a swift and driving increase in our armament production. Leaders of industry and labor have responded to our summons. Goals of speed have been set. In some cases these goals are being reached ahead of time. In some cases we are on schedule; in other cases there are slight but not serious delays. And in some cases -- and, I am sorry to say, very important cases -- we are all concerned by the slowness of the accomplishment of our plans.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/spee...urfreedoms.htm

Stalin... As I understand it, he too expected confrontation with Hitler... though not that soon. He thought he had bought time with his agreements, and was wrong, but he knew what was coming.

So, yes, you are correct in spirit. I'm just nitpicking a detail, here, the timing. With the invasion of France and the Battle of Britain, Hitler had pretty much declared himself. Handwriting on wall. Little doubt of what was to come. All plausible preparations in progress. History writes of Pearl Harbor and Barbarossa as having achieved surprise, but it was tactical surprise rather than industrial level strategic surprise. Mobilization was already well underway.

Just a nitpick. I can agree with the sense of what your are saying. It's just that people tend to over rate the importance of Pearl Harbor as a catalyst. The regeneracy had already taken place. The government and People had known what had to be done. The aggressor powers knew this too. Japan knew the Essex Class carrier and Iowa Class battleship keels had already been laid. Hitler knew, the longer he waited, the less his chance of success. Pearl Harbor was the green flag coming down. It was not "Gentlemen, start your engines."

This is important in the context of September 11th. The regeneracy often comes before the final war starting incedent. The People have to have a sense of what must be done before the final motivation arrives to say now is the time to do it. Thus, if another major incedent were to happen in the immediate future, I'm not sure we'd have a 4T consensus. We'd get another chance to start a regeneracy, and maybe our leadership would ask for big enough changes that the mood might hold this time. Still, it is not clear that we are a disaster away from full 4T.

I believe 911 was the beginning of 4t. Just a bad 4t like the civil war in which there was no consensus anywhere. The signs point to this conclusion. Both periods have nativist activism, Radical Republicans, and will institute unpopular drafts( There is serious consideration for a new draft). Also if you look at the age of each gen when the crisis started you see what may possibly be a recurring megacycle in the American Saeculum. That is, if the arrival of the singularity doesn't make this cycle the very last.

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

I was speaking of how each major power saw it's own role during the last 4T, whether or not said view was right. As Britain and France were primarily interested in holding on to their colonial empires and their pre-4T pre-eminence in world affairs, they would most certainly qualify under my definition as 'status quo powers'.

In the case of the Axis, they saw themselves as 'agents of change' in that they were seeking to topple the old international order by force - to their own advantage. However, as you did above, it is easy to give the lie to such claims on their part, simply by looking at how they went about the matter, and what their ideological basis for acting was.

The interesting thing about both the United States and the Soviet Union is that during the entire first part of the 4T (until 1941, in fact), both pursued their concepts of meaningful social change in a very introspective (dare I say 'isolationist'?) way which led both to all but turn their backs on world affairs, except in their respective 'near abroads' - until they were each attacked, thus gaining carte blanche (at least in their own eyes) to spread their respective concepts of how to change and reform any and every society within their respective reach - including the defeated 'false change agents' and the old status quo powers, who's part in the final 4T victory was Pyrrhic in nature.

Great summation!