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 411







Post#10251 at 10-11-2005 02:15 AM by Mr. Reed [at Intersection of History joined Jun 2001 #posts 4,376]
---
10-11-2005, 02:15 AM #10251
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Intersection of History
Posts
4,376

DailyKos.com/Back to the 30s

Not sure if the person who wrote this blog entry is familiar with S&H theories, but this person sees many parallels with the 1930s and the direction the nation is currently headed.

Back to the 30s
"The urge to dream, and the will to enable it is fundamental to being human and have coincided with what it is to be American." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson
intp '82er







Post#10252 at 10-11-2005 11:55 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
10-11-2005, 11:55 AM #10252
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Re: DailyKos.com/Back to the 30s

Quote Originally Posted by cumulonimbus
Not sure if the person who wrote this blog entry is familiar with S&H theories, but this person seems many parallels with the 1930s and the direction the nation is currently headed.

Back to the 30s
A worthy read. History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes, indeed.

I confess, of late between Tsunami, hurricane, earthquake, war, politicians and chickens with the flu, I am minded to check the horizon for four gigantic horsemen blowing horns.







Post#10253 at 10-11-2005 12:32 PM by scott 63 [at Birmingham joined Sep 2001 #posts 697]
---
10-11-2005, 12:32 PM #10253
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Birmingham
Posts
697

Re: DailyKos.com/Back to the 30s

Quote Originally Posted by cumulonimbus
Not sure if the person who wrote this blog entry is familiar with S&H theories, but this person seems many parallels with the 1930s and the direction the nation is currently headed.

Back to the 30s
Interesting.

I'm not sure that airships are about to appear over world cities. No indication is given that the fuel consumption of a blimp is superior to that of an ocean vessal or plane.
Leave No Child Behind - Teach Evolution.







Post#10254 at 10-11-2005 08:03 PM by Mr. Reed [at Intersection of History joined Jun 2001 #posts 4,376]
---
10-11-2005, 08:03 PM #10254
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Intersection of History
Posts
4,376

Re: DailyKos.com/Back to the 30s

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54
Quote Originally Posted by cumulonimbus
Not sure if the person who wrote this blog entry is familiar with S&H theories, but this person seems many parallels with the 1930s and the direction the nation is currently headed.

Back to the 30s
A worthy read. History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes, indeed.

I confess, of late between Tsunami, hurricane, earthquake, war, politicians and chickens with the flu, I am minded to check the horizon for four gigantic horsemen blowing horns.
Of course, no one doubts that the frequency of hurricanes is increasing. In fact, a tropical cyclone just made landfall in Portugal for the first time in recorded history. Just one more named storm will tie 1933 as the most active Atlantic season in history, an if we continue to get more storms, they will be named after Greek leters (Tropical Storm Alpha, Beta, etc). But beyond hurricanes, are things just much worse today, or are we just paying more attention to the outer world? Consider this: most people didn't pay as much attention to the bad news worldwide (even though they did pay more attention to bad things happening to individuals) during the 1980s and 1990s. However, since the turn of the millennium, each single piece of bad news seemed to grate our nerves. This decade has been nothing but a train of continuous bad news. The view from today is exceedingly bleak, perhaps the most bleak period in this nation since the early 1930s. Perhaps, we are finally stepping outside of ourselves and taking a look at the devastation around us. As stated in Generations, during the Crisis Era, a society has a "grim preoccupation with civil peril". Certainly looking more and more like this.
"The urge to dream, and the will to enable it is fundamental to being human and have coincided with what it is to be American." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson
intp '82er







Post#10255 at 10-17-2005 02:58 AM by Mr. Reed [at Intersection of History joined Jun 2001 #posts 4,376]
---
10-17-2005, 02:58 AM #10255
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Intersection of History
Posts
4,376

DailyKos.com/It's going to snow soon

It's going to snow soon

Read not only the article, which predicts hard economic times for America, but also the comments.
"The urge to dream, and the will to enable it is fundamental to being human and have coincided with what it is to be American." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson
intp '82er







Post#10256 at 10-17-2005 03:00 AM by Mr. Reed [at Intersection of History joined Jun 2001 #posts 4,376]
---
10-17-2005, 03:00 AM #10256
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Intersection of History
Posts
4,376

In fact, look at the entire Depression section of DailyKos.com.
"The urge to dream, and the will to enable it is fundamental to being human and have coincided with what it is to be American." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson
intp '82er







Post#10257 at 10-17-2005 10:16 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
10-17-2005, 10:16 AM #10257
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

I've been working on a description of proposed mechanisms for the saeculum. For the modern saeculum the proposed mechanism is linked to politics, particularly critical elections. According to this model, the best guide to current turning comes from whether or not 2004 was a critical election year. If it was then the 4T was already underway at that time, if not it could still be in the future.

The 2004 election met two of three important criteria for critical elections: large turnout and intensely partisan. The last is whether or not the outcome is reflected in long-term political alignments after the election. If in 2006 the GOP maintains solid control over Congress in the face of low poll numbers and widespread scandal, this would strongly imply that 2004 was a critical election. A GOP victory in 2008 would seal the deal.

If Democrats do very well next year then the idea that the 2004 election was critical becomes less tenable. The model forecast for the start ot the crisis is 2003; the critical election is forecast as equally likely in 2004 or 2008. Aligned cycles argue for an earlier date of 2000 for the crisis start.

My gut feel is the GOP does OK next year and 2004 was a critical election locking in GOP dominance for most of the 4T. In this case the 4T must have begun no later than 2004--I favor either 2001 (911) or 2003 (Iraq war).







Post#10258 at 10-17-2005 01:02 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
10-17-2005, 01:02 PM #10258
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Escalation

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
My gut feel is the GOP does OK next year and 2004 was a critical election locking in GOP dominance for most of the 4T. In this case the 4T must have begun no later than 2004--I favor either 2001 (911) or 2003 (Iraq war).
Interesting. My perspective is looking at regeneracies. Early in a crisis, the proposed solutions to problems tend to be small. In the Civil War cascade, it went from a new free state for every new slave state, to no new slave states, to keeping the South in the Union by force, to the Emancipation Proclamation, to the XIVth Amendment. As one gets into deeper and deeper do do, more drastic solutions to ending the misery become acceptable until something is tried that sort of more or less works. With 20 20 hindsight, the early small solutions -- low energy maintain the status quo approaches -- seem pitiful. Thus, a Buchanan or Hoover is not remembered well.

Bush 43's solution to 9.11 -- use military force, work for national interests not global interests, do not address basic issues, maintain a peace time economy -- seems to me to be inadequate. Thus, we have a false regeneracy.

A set of solutions is attempted. They don't work so good. When this becomes obvious, we try again. Repeat until a leader gets in who, when his early proposals aren't working, is able to escalate to larger proposals while bringing the voters with him. This might be a key ability of grey champions, to stumble forward. When at first you don't succeed, try harder, take bigger risks, step further into the unknown, take the country along for the ride.

Looking at elections isn't a bad idea. I'm looking at issues, and who is willing to address them. I'm still thinking 9.11 will be remembered as the starting gun, but don't think the country is into an aggressive 'attack problems until solved' mentality. We're still into 'argue about problems until frustrated' mode. I suspect getting into attack mentality will involve a partisan large turnout election that hasn't happened yet. I'm guessing.







Post#10259 at 10-17-2005 01:27 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-17-2005, 01:27 PM #10259
Guest

Re: Escalation

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54
Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
My gut feel is the GOP does OK next year and 2004 was a critical election locking in GOP dominance for most of the 4T. In this case the 4T must have begun no later than 2004--I favor either 2001 (911) or 2003 (Iraq war).
With 20 20 hindsight, the early small solutions -- low energy maintain the status quo approaches -- seem pitiful. Thus, a Buchanan or Hoover is not remembered well.
Or Clinton.

But Hillary's running in 2008. As liberals are completely convinced that terrorism is not that relevant (call it a non-4T issue), can they convince America that Clinton's (and Kerry's) "nuanced" approach to terrorists in the right one? The war in Iraq was the deciding issue last year. Liberals lost. Will they continue to lose or will they, as with Vietnam, be able to turn the country against the decision they made in 2004?

It's a simple equation really. The onlty thing that complicates it is post-Vietnam liberals inability to be completely honest about their intentions. Instead they play Kerry games -- I voted for it before I voted against it -- with the voters.

I think Hillary has recently changed her view on abortion, too (she quietly voted for the 2002 Iraq War Resolution), before she changed her view on abortion. Clintonism works, eh? :wink:







Post#10260 at 10-17-2005 01:38 PM by Devils Advocate [at joined Nov 2004 #posts 1,834]
---
10-17-2005, 01:38 PM #10260
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
1,834

Re: Escalation

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
I think Hillary has recently changed her view on abortion, too (she quietly voted for the 2002 Iraq War Resolution), before she changed her view on abortion. Clintonism works, eh? :wink:
Her position is that abortion is a bad thing that we should work to eliminate, but that it shouldn't be illegal. And, from your leader's actions, it appears he feels the same way. :lol:

Personally I can't defend Kerry or Clinton for voting on that resolution. Congress, according to my conservative interpretation of the Constitution, gets to declare war. Handing that power over to the executive was a docile, passive, undemocratic thing to do. I'm sure other strict interpreters of our laws would agree.







Post#10261 at 10-17-2005 01:48 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-17-2005, 01:48 PM #10261
Guest

Re: Escalation

Quote Originally Posted by Joe Strummer
Congress, according to my conservative interpretation of the Constitution, gets to declare war. Handing that power over to the executive was a docile, passive, undemocratic thing to do. I'm sure other strict interpreters of our laws would agree.
Congress, according to your conservative interpretation of the Constitution, gets to declare war. Handing that power over to the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces was a docile, passive, undemocratic thing to do? I'm sure other, uh, strict interpreters of our laws, searching foreign documents like David Souter does, would agree with you. 8)







Post#10262 at 10-17-2005 02:11 PM by Devils Advocate [at joined Nov 2004 #posts 1,834]
---
10-17-2005, 02:11 PM #10262
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
1,834

Re: Escalation

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by Joe Strummer
Congress, according to my conservative interpretation of the Constitution, gets to declare war. Handing that power over to the executive was a docile, passive, undemocratic thing to do. I'm sure other strict interpreters of our laws would agree.
Congress, according to your conservative interpretation of the Constitution, gets to declare war. Handing that power over to the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces was a docile, passive, undemocratic thing to do? I'm sure other, uh, strict interpreters of our laws, searching foreign documents like David Souter does, would agree with you. 8)
It was the wrong decision to make. If Iraq truly posed an immediate threat, I am sure that Congress would have declared war of its own accord. Instead it was hoodwinked into giving up one of its greatest powers - for what reason? None.







Post#10263 at 10-17-2005 02:24 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-17-2005, 02:24 PM #10263
Guest








Post#10264 at 10-17-2005 02:44 PM by Devils Advocate [at joined Nov 2004 #posts 1,834]
---
10-17-2005, 02:44 PM #10264
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
1,834

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
You're right Mark. The inspection failing automatically called for Congress to abdicate its responsibilities and hand them over to the executive branch. Made perfect sense. You've got problems, Mark. You should really see an analyst. I mean it as your friend...







Post#10265 at 10-17-2005 05:16 PM by jeffw [at Orange County, CA--dob 1961 joined Jul 2001 #posts 417]
---
10-17-2005, 05:16 PM #10265
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Orange County, CA--dob 1961
Posts
417

Re: Escalation

Quote Originally Posted by Devils Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
I think Hillary has recently changed her view on abortion, too (she quietly voted for the 2002 Iraq War Resolution), before she changed her view on abortion. Clintonism works, eh? :wink:
Her position is that abortion is a bad thing that we should work to eliminate, but that it shouldn't be illegal. And, from your leader's actions, it appears he feels the same way. :lol:

Personally I can't defend Kerry or Clinton for voting on that resolution. Congress, according to my conservative interpretation of the Constitution, gets to declare war. Handing that power over to the executive was a docile, passive, undemocratic thing to do. I'm sure other strict interpreters of our laws would agree.
This wouldn't be the first time that DA has quoted himself, but in the next posting he quotes this post as authored by Joe Strummer. Is Joe Strummer a sock puppet for DA? Or vice versa?
Jeff '61







Post#10266 at 10-17-2005 05:18 PM by jeffw [at Orange County, CA--dob 1961 joined Jul 2001 #posts 417]
---
10-17-2005, 05:18 PM #10266
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Orange County, CA--dob 1961
Posts
417

Quote Originally Posted by Devils Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
You're right Mark. The inspection failing automatically called for Congress to abdicate its responsibilities and hand them over to the executive branch. Made perfect sense. You've got problems, Mark. You should really see an analyst. I mean it as your friend...
:shock:
Jeff '61







Post#10267 at 10-17-2005 10:26 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-17-2005, 10:26 PM #10267
Guest

Re: Escalation

Quote Originally Posted by jeffw
Quote Originally Posted by Devils Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
I think Hillary has recently changed her view on abortion, too (she quietly voted for the 2002 Iraq War Resolution), before she changed her view on abortion. Clintonism works, eh? :wink:
Her position is that abortion is a bad thing that we should work to eliminate, but that it shouldn't be illegal. And, from your leader's actions, it appears he feels the same way. :lol:

Personally I can't defend Kerry or Clinton for voting on that resolution. Congress, according to my conservative interpretation of the Constitution, gets to declare war. Handing that power over to the executive was a docile, passive, undemocratic thing to do. I'm sure other strict interpreters of our laws would agree.
This wouldn't be the first time that DA has quoted himself, but in the next posting he quotes this post as authored by Joe Strummer. Is Joe Strummer a sock puppet for DA? Or vice versa?
Take a closer look at the names of the post authors: "Devil's Advocate" is the same person as he usually was; "Devils Advocate" (without the apostrophe), however, is a different identity entirely.







Post#10268 at 10-17-2005 10:37 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-17-2005, 10:37 PM #10268
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
I've been working on a description of proposed mechanisms for the saeculum. For the modern saeculum the proposed mechanism is linked to politics, particularly critical elections. According to this model, the best guide to current turning comes from whether or not 2004 was a critical election year. If it was then the 4T was already underway at that time, if not it could still be in the future.

The 2004 election met two of three important criteria for critical elections: large turnout and intensely partisan. The last is whether or not the outcome is reflected in long-term political alignments after the election. If in 2006 the GOP maintains solid control over Congress in the face of low poll numbers and widespread scandal, this would strongly imply that 2004 was a critical election. A GOP victory in 2008 would seal the deal.

If Democrats do very well next year then the idea that the 2004 election was critical becomes less tenable. The model forecast for the start ot the crisis is 2003; the critical election is forecast as equally likely in 2004 or 2008. Aligned cycles argue for an earlier date of 2000 for the crisis start.

My gut feel is the GOP does OK next year and 2004 was a critical election locking in GOP dominance for most of the 4T. In this case the 4T must have begun no later than 2004--I favor either 2001 (911) or 2003 (Iraq war).
Would you say 2004 would still be a critical election if the Democrats made sizable gains in both Houses, but not *quite* enough to recapture either one?
(e.g. the Democrats gain 12 seats in the House of Representatives to get to 213 - their best total in nearly 1 1/2 decades - and then take 3 seats in the Senate to draw within 20 of a 50/50 split)?







Post#10269 at 10-18-2005 07:16 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
10-18-2005, 07:16 AM #10269
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Seminomad
Would you say 2004 would still be a critical election if the Democrats made sizable gains in both Houses, but not *quite* enough to recapture either one?
(e.g. the Democrats gain 12 seats in the House of Representatives to get to 213 - their best total in nearly 1 1/2 decades - and then take 3 seats in the Senate to draw within 20 of a 50/50 split)?
I'd probably have to wait until 2008.







Post#10270 at 10-18-2005 08:08 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
10-18-2005, 08:08 AM #10270
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Re: Escalation

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54
Interesting. My perspective is looking at regeneracies. Early in a crisis, the proposed solutions to problems tend to be small. In the Civil War cascade, it went from a new free state for every new slave state, to no new slave states, to keeping the South in the Union by force, to the Emancipation Proclamation, to the XIVth Amendment. As one gets into deeper and deeper do do, more drastic solutions to ending the misery become acceptable until something is tried that sort of more or less works. With 20 20 hindsight, the early small solutions -- low energy maintain the status quo approaches -- seem pitiful. Thus, a Buchanan or Hoover is not remembered well.

Bush 43's solution to 9.11 -- use military force, work for national interests not global interests, do not address basic issues, maintain a peace time economy -- seems to me to be inadequate. Thus, we have a false regeneracy.

A set of solutions is attempted. They don't work so good. When this becomes obvious, we try again. Repeat until a leader gets in who, when his early proposals aren't working, is able to escalate to larger proposals while bringing the voters with him. This might be a key ability of grey champions, to stumble forward. When at first you don't succeed, try harder, take bigger risks, step further into the unknown, take the country along for the ride.

Looking at elections isn't a bad idea. I'm looking at issues, and who is willing to address them. I'm still thinking 9.11 will be remembered as the starting gun, but don't think the country is into an aggressive 'attack problems until solved' mentality. We're still into 'argue about problems until frustrated' mode. I suspect getting into attack mentality will involve a partisan large turnout election that hasn't happened yet. I'm guessing.
You approach has a lot of prerequisites. How can one look at a regeneracy until one is sure we are in a 4T?

In the Civil War cascade you mention you list events that cover half a century. A new free state for every new slave state plus the ending of the slave trade was the solution to the "slave problem" from the previous crisis. It is more the end of a spiral than a beginning.

A new spiral begins with the question of the spread of slavery--a completely new issue, with new players and new emotions. It was "settled" in 1820 with the Missouri Compromise, except it wasn't really settled, as the Compromise of 1850 shows. So I would date the start of the spiral in 1850.

People thought 1850 would work like 1820 did. It didn't. A number of solutions were considered: (1)forcible annexation of Cuba as a slave state to balance free California (2) replacing the 1820 compromise with popular sovereignty (Kansas-Nebraska Act) (3) organization of a politically united front (the GOP) to defend the 1820 compromise (4) a ruling from the Supreme Court (Dred Scott) that the 1820 compromise was unconstitutional (5) Steven Douglas's heroic efforts to prevent the fissuring of the Democratic party--and near certain civil war (6) the Democrats fissuring, permitting the GOP to win the election (7) South Carolina's secession (8.) Senator Crittenden's efforts at brokering another compromise to head off a bloody war, (9) the failure of the Crittenden plan and the shelling of Fort Sumter (10) early battlefield losses harden the Northern position from reunification to defeat of the Confederacy(11) adoption by the North of the idea that to defeat the South required the destruction of the very basis of their civilization--slavery. (12) Military defeat of the Confederacy and imposition of the 13th Amendment (13) President Johnson's attempt to implement Lincoln's "with malice towards none" idea results in him impeachment. (14) Congress scraps Johnson's plan, imposes Reconstruction

The spiral stops here, the next logical steps, confiscation of Southern land for redistribution to former slaves, or even summary execution of the leading men of the South--were not taken.

You are assuming that Bush is addressing a problem of the 4T. If we still be 3T (which is what we are discussing here) then the WOT is merely a tempest in a teapot and not worth of serious effort. Bush's use of the WOT as a political aid is entirely appropriate for a 3T politician.

And even if we be 4T, if terrorism is not the major issue (as I believe), then how Bush deals with it is again not relevant.

IMO, the tale will be told in the electoral outcomes. If it really is about terorrism and a threat to the US, then Bush's unfocused response to the problem will cause harm to his party's fortunes.

If the problem is instead what I think it is (too much money chasing too few decent investments--what I call a shortage of leading sectors of the world economy) then since neither party is even remotely addressing this issue, either of them can win--but since the GOP have the machine I'll bet on them. The problem will still be addressed--but it will be the saeculum itself that brings up the issue (possibly through the mechanism of peak oil or the agency of the Chinese) and not some domestic politician.

Looking at how the politicians were blindsided in the last two crises, I suspect blindsided is what will happen this time too.







Post#10271 at 10-18-2005 08:27 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
10-18-2005, 08:27 AM #10271
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Re: Escalation

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54
Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
My gut feel is the GOP does OK next year and 2004 was a critical election locking in GOP dominance for most of the 4T. In this case the 4T must have begun no later than 2004--I favor either 2001 (911) or 2003 (Iraq war).
With 20 20 hindsight, the early small solutions -- low energy maintain the status quo approaches -- seem pitiful. Thus, a Buchanan or Hoover is not remembered well.
Or Clinton.

But Hillary's running in 2008. As liberals are completely convinced that terrorism is not that relevant (call it a non-4T issue), can they convince America that Clinton's (and Kerry's) "nuanced" approach to terrorists in the right one? The war in Iraq was the deciding issue last year. Liberals lost. Will they continue to lose or will they, as with Vietnam, be able to turn the country against the decision they made in 2004?
Thing is, Clinton 42 was in office before the catalyst. I've heard some say that Clinton 42 has read some of S&H's stuff. Some say he thought a crisis might be coming, and even thought him disappointed that he had been elected too early to be remembered as a great crisis president. If that was his desire, he was dealing with a People who were not ready to sacrifice. He worked towards a global consensus. Should major crimes against humanity -- ethnic cleansing, genocide, military scale rapes or political famines -- bring an area into anarchy, an international coalition of the willing will intervene. This was the 'Clinton Doctrine,' which I declared a week ahead of the White House.

Since 9.11, America is much more willing to accept casualties. Bush 43 puts less emphasis on crimes against humanity and consensus than Clinton 42. The country was with him pretty much on Afghanistan, but has been persistently dubious about Iraq, and seems to be growing more dubious as time goes by. The other world powers have been even more dubious about Iraq than the American People. If Bush 43's policy was serial preemptive unilateral nation building, it looks like it is in trouble. It doesn't look like we'll be clear of Iraq within the Bush 43 administration to the extent we'll be ready to go after, say, Syria, Iran or North Korea. The 2008 election will be in part a referendum on serial preemptive unilateral nation building. I don't know whether Hillary (Clinton 44???) has the balls to articulate a firm post serial preemptive unilateral nation building policy. Well, if she runs, she's going to have to. I quite agree that Kerry's 'nuanced' stance in 2004 was entirely inadequate to inspire.

My own opinions? What might be Iraq's lessons learned?

Serial : An idea that as soon as we finish one war, it is time to launch the next one might not fly. 'War is a last resort' might be taken more seriously as a governing principle.

Unilateral : The Democrats are leaning towards rejoining the world community. The Republicans don't seem to believe this can be done. I think it has to be done. If a crisis is coming, we're not going to be able to go it alone.

Preemptive : Al Qaeda isn't working in the open to the extent is was in Afghanistan. It is going to be hard to justify invasion as part of the War on Terror in the future.

Nation Building : In Iraq, the security costs have been much higher than the nation building costs. Spending money on infrastructure seems clearly unwise while an active insurgency is still blowing up infrastructure. Attacking the economic underlying causes -- nation building without the preemptive invasion -- seems wiser than looking for or manufacturing excuses to use the military.

There are tactical lessons learned as well. Secure the ammo dumps. Don't dissolve the invaded country's military. Maintain law and order in the immediate aftermath of the overt fighting. Organize more 'peace keeping' and 'nation building' capability to go with the 'war fighting.' Fight today's wars, not yesterday's. Don't assume it will be easy.

The Democrats, when the time comes, would want to state lessons learned firmly but without discrediting the rank and file soldiers and marines who did their best given the policies they were told to implement. Make the Republicans defend questionable policy. Let the Republicans do the wishy washy dancing around.

The world is more complex than modern media can cover. Not all policy can be reduced to sound bite sized packets. I have some sympathy for Kerry, who tried to describe more complex policies than the media enjoys covering. Any candidate that follows suit -- describing complex real issues with complex policies -- is apt to be painted as a waffling ditherer. Thus, we are training our candidates to promise simplistic policies that fit in neat sound bite size packages. A government that actually tries to implement such simplistic sound bite policies would not be optimal.

Anyway, none of the Democrats have thus far articulated a clear alternative. No matter how much the Republicans are falling apart these days, the Democrats are going to have to articulate a clear alternative eventually. The opportunity is there. I'd like to think someone will be able to see it.







Post#10272 at 10-18-2005 09:51 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
10-18-2005, 09:51 AM #10272
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Re: Escalation

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
You are assuming that Bush is addressing a problem of the 4T. If we still be 3T (which is what we are discussing here) then the WOT is merely a tempest in a teapot and not worth of serious effort. Bush's use of the WOT as a political aid is entirely appropriate for a 3T politician.

And even if we be 4T, if terrorism is not the major issue (as I believe), then how Bush deals with it is again not relevant.

IMO, the tale will be told in the electoral outcomes. If it really is about terrorism and a threat to the US, then Bush's unfocused response to the problem will cause harm to his party's fortunes.

If the problem is instead what I think it is (too much money chasing too few decent investments--what I call a shortage of leading sectors of the world economy) then since neither party is even remotely addressing this issue, either of them can win--but since the GOP have the machine I'll bet on them. The problem will still be addressed--but it will be the saeculum itself that brings up the issue (possibly through the mechanism of peak oil or the agency of the Chinese) and not some domestic politician.

Looking at how the politicians were blindsided in the last two crises, I suspect blindsided is what will happen this time too.
I don't doubt there will be economic aspects to the next crisis. I don't doubt that a lack of leading sectors is contributing to current economic difficulties. I also see new technologies and new industries as being an underlying force beneath many crises. In the past, newly wealthy industrialists seeking a better environment to enhance profits have struggled against entrenched interests. It could happen again, though most of the past struggles have been between a king and/or land owning agricultural elites taking on democracy sponsored by industrial robber barons. As the industrial robber barons have for the most part triumphed over the agricultural elites in the west, a new leading sectors tension would have to take on a significantly different pattern. At the moment, the robber barons in their latest global corporatist disguise are triumphant. A new group of leading sector robber barons would be nice in increasing the over all wealth, but there would be no need for them to overthrow a structure already nigh on optimized for robber barons.

Could you give a few examples of possible leading industries, and how they might have to struggle against an entrenched establishment? Renewable energy and genetic engineering come to mind.

Anyway, I see an overly strong division of wealth driving the ethnic and religious conflicts, which in turn drive terror. The division of wealth is in part left over from Imperialistic policies of the not too distant past. The ruling elites also have too much say in government. Pure capitalism pushes towards too much division of wealth, and excess resource usage. Democracy needs to be strengthened such that the People can restrain government of the elites, by the elites, for the elites. Less trickle down, more trickle up is the broad direction we'll have to go in.

Another factor is the expanding role of the luxury sector. As technology continues to develop, it takes a smaller portion of the population to perform the necessary jobs. More people end up teaching martial arts, painting fingernails and whipping up latte. As computer automation further penetrates the service sector, this will get worse. Modern societies aren't optimized for luxury based economies. There are just too many low paying part time jobs, while the government's benefits rules were written for traditional households featuring a full time wage earner.

In short, increasing automation means ever smaller portions of the population are involved in vital tasks. Less than vital tasks will pay poorly, and currently provide inadequate benefits. While ever more efficient means of producing wealth is not the worst conceivable problem, somehow optimizing society to be inclusive is apt to be more key to the crisis than any new industry. We are seeing it strongly enough in the United States. Variations of the problem are worse in the Third World. Large populations of underemployed young males is an underlying cause of terror. Ever more efficient farm and factory production combining with lower infant mortality rates is perceived of as a good thing. Ware the consequences.

And I would agree, this is not being seriously addressed yet. The problem will be obvious in hindsight, yet the politicians will feel blindsided none the less. When it is addressed, assuming no major platform flip-flop, I would expect the Democrats to be more aggressive in attacking the problem, while the Republicans would be more apt to cling to the status quo. This might be a core perspective when some new Grey Champion tries for a New New Deal.

But I wouldn't say terror and economics are unrelated. It is all apt to be one big messy problem.

Fourth Turnings as times of major change where major flaws in society are decisively addressed. The faction that embraces change, that perceives and aggressively attacks the problems, is apt to create the next culture.

I applaud your attempts at finding objective numbers that might make useful metrics for measuring history. Voter turnout, partisanship and leading sectors are neat things to be watched. It might be hard, though, looking at past crises to find the key numbers for this crisis. Since Galileo, most crises seem to center on agricultural sector to industrial sector transitions. This time, the service sector might be blindsiding us. If this is the first Third Wave crisis, the opportunity to get blindsided might be greater than usual.







Post#10273 at 10-18-2005 01:35 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
10-18-2005, 01:35 PM #10273
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Re: Escalation

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54
As the industrial robber barons have for the most part triumphed over the agricultural elites in the west, a new leading sectors tension would have to take on a significantly different pattern.
Entrenched wealth is a chief opponent to leading sector development.

At the moment, the robber barons in their latest global corporatist disguise are triumphant.
This is precisely the problem.

Could you give a few examples of possible leading industries, and how they might have to struggle against an entrenched establishment? Renewable energy and genetic engineering come to mind.
Renewable enrgy is one. Genetic engineering can only become one of the health care system is revamped.

Pure capitalism pushes towards too much division of wealth, and excess resource usage.
I would say capitalism in the absence of sufficent leading sectors pushes towards too much division of wealth, and excess resource usage.

Another factor is the expanding role of the luxury sector. As technology continues to develop, it takes a smaller portion of the population to perform the necessary jobs. More people end up teaching martial arts, painting fingernails and whipping up latte. As computer automation further penetrates the service sector, this will get worse.
If the economy still serves the same wants and needs, yet grows in efficiency, to prevent mass unemployment we need to indulge these same needs and wants in ever more elaborate ways. So we buy bigger and fancier houses for smaller families and we pay more for the same house. We spend more and more on advertising to get people to spend more on the same sort of stuff their parents bought. Just how much does the average housheld spend on anything new?

One of the hottest tech outfits today is skype. What do they offer? Phone service. That's a 100+ year old service. A few years the stock market was in a frenzy over Amazon, which is basically a reworking of Montgomery Ward's idea, also 100+ years old.

I'm not saying there isn't new stuff. Sure there is, but how much do we spend on it? A good leading sector is one on which people spend an increasing share of their household income, at the expense of old economy goods and services like cars, manufactures, houses etc. Thus a smaller fraction of our earnings flow into the old sectors that employ a shrinking fraction of the population and more flows into the new stuff that employs a growing fraction of the population.

The biggest impediment to developing new leading sectors is the huge mountain of cash floating around. All that cash means lots of effort is made to hang on to it, which discourages true innovation. How can you innovate if you are always playing defense? For example, the government works to keep the oil paradigm going by intervening in the Middle East instead of leapfrogging to what is eventually going to replace oil.

All that cash is enervating. I suggest the idea that thousands of years from now people might live very long lifespans (a pretty mundane idea)and that is labeled snake oil. Another poster suggested supernovae is a threat we should be more concerned about than something like climate change. We are told health care and social security faces financial doom, that we will all have to do with less in the future. The world is contracting. Our powers diminishing. It's the declinist POV.

You want to shake things up and maybe get some new leading sectors? Raise taxes through the roof and use the cash to generate a federal surplus. Force those Chinese and Japanese holders of mountains of US dollars to spend them on something besides US government bonds.

We did this is a small way in 1993 and we got something interesting stuff out of it, the internet, hybrid cars, etc. We do it again in a bigger way and maybe we breed some bigger leading sectors.







Post#10274 at 10-18-2005 02:04 PM by albatross '82 [at Portland, OR joined Sep 2005 #posts 248]
---
10-18-2005, 02:04 PM #10274
Join Date
Sep 2005
Location
Portland, OR
Posts
248

Re: Escalation

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54
Thing is, Clinton 42 was in office before the catalyst. I've heard some say that Clinton 42 has read some of S&H's stuff. Some say he thought a crisis might be coming, and even thought him disappointed that he had been elected too early to be remembered as a great crisis president.
Yeah, I've heard that Clinton and Gore both have read S&H. I think, judging by their post-2000 actions, that they would both love to be the Grey Champion. I actually remember Clinton saying around 2002 or so that he wished that 9/11 happened on his watch. He would have loved the challenge. Well, he may have his chance yet...as the first husband anyway.







Post#10275 at 10-18-2005 06:03 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-18-2005, 06:03 PM #10275
Guest

Re: Escalation, eh?

Quote Originally Posted by albatross '82
Yeah, I've heard that Clinton and Gore both have read S&H. I think, judging by their post-2000 actions, that they would both love to be the Grey Champion. I actually remember Clinton saying around 2002 or so that he wished that 9/11 happened on his watch. He would have loved the challenge.
Clinton "wished that 9/11 happened on his watch"? Judging by his "nuanced" approach to the disaster in Mogadishu, the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, the 1996 Khobar Tower attack, and the later bin Laden-led attacks on the U.S. Embassy (1998) and the U.S.S Cole (2000), I find this more than just a bit curious... not to mention sickly in a narcissistic way.

It should be no surprise, but it deniably will, that John Zogby found only 25% of Americans wishing that Clinton was still president, in a direct head to head post-9/11 polling match up with Bush.

But, as the results of the election last year failed to show, the public mood is certainly much different now, four years later.
-----------------------------------------