Or not.

Don't forget the Transcendentals.

The Missionaries were one of the most calm...one of the least radical...Prophet gens that we know of. This may help explain why their system has proven to be so durable.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Or not.

Don't forget the Transcendentals.

Even there. During the Civil War, the North did develop a consensus, however the South formed a completely different one, and the two sides ended up duking it out.

The North developed a consensus built around industrial and technological progress, and preserving the Union at all costs. There were many Yankees who were vehemently anti-slavery, a few who strongly supported it, and a majority who were essentially indifferent in an out-of-sight-out-of-mind sort of way. Most people in all these groups agreed that slavery had to go in order to meet the aforementioned core issues, progress and preservation, to an extent that they were willing to fight a bloody war ostensibly to end the practice of slavery.

The same positions... for, against, or indifferent... existed among Southerners. However they were fighting for their core issue of an agrarian-dominated economy and lifestyle, which they viewed as incompatible with the industrial goals of the North. This way of life as they knew it depended upon slavery, and as such even people who felt slavery was wrong were willing to fight and die to keep it going.

In the 1930s (according to this website), the Missionary socialists, communists, anarchists, fascists, and economic liberals debated bitterly with one another over which was the "one true ideology". Missionary to Missionary conversation was often very vitriolic. Among the GIs, however, a clear consensus (as explained by Kevin) had developed by 1933 among activists. Of course, they still argued about socialism vs. capitalism vs fascism vs. liberalism, etc. But forming a consensus on basic issues allowed them to work together to implement solutions. We increasingly see a similar picture emerge today. We saw this during the Dean campaign and the subsequent inauguration of netroots politics. And today, we can see the workings of communities forming a consensus on "matters of principal" such as net neutrality a cause which is represented by pretty much the entire political spectrum. The regeneracy itself may be near.

I think that Gingrich is a bit premature.

Gingrich says it's World War III

Posted by David Postman at 12:54 PM

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says America is in World War III and President Bush should say so. In an interview in Bellevue this morning Gingrich said Bush should call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been heard from the president.

"We need to have the militancy that says 'We're not going to lose a city,' " Gingrich said. He talks about the need to recognize World War III as important for military strategy and political strategy.

Gingrich said he is "very worried" about Republican's facing fall elections and says the party must have the "nerve" to nationalize the elections and make the 2006 campaigns about a liberal Democratic agenda rather than about President Bush's record.

Gingrich says that as of now Republicans "are sailing into the wind" in congressional campaigns. He said that's in part because of the Iraq war, adding, "Iraq is hard and painful and we do not explain it very well."

But some of it is due to Republicans' congressional agenda. He said House and Senate Republicans "forgot the core principle" of the party and embraced Congressional pork. "Some of the guys," he said, have come down with a case of "incumbentitis."

Gingrich said in the coming days he plans to speak out publicly, and to the Administration, about the need to recognize that America is in World War III.

He lists wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, this week's bomb attacks in India, North Korean nuclear threats, terrorist arrests and investigations in Florida, Canada and Britain, and violence in Israel and Lebanon as evidence of World War III. He said Bush needs to deliver a speech to Congress and "connect all the dots" for Americans.

He said the reluctance to put those pieces together and see one global conflict is hurting America's interests. He said people, including some in the Bush Administration, who urge a restrained response from Israel are wrong "because they haven't crossed the bridge of realizing this is a war."

"This is World War III," Gingrich said. And once that's accepted, he said calls for restraint would fall away:

"Israel wouldn't leave southern Lebanon as long as there was a single missile there. I would go in and clean them all out and I would announce that any Iranian airplane trying to bring missiles to re-supply them would be shot down. This idea that we have this one-sided war where the other team gets to plan how to kill us and we get to talk, is nuts."

There is a public relations value, too. Gingrich said that public opinion can change "the minute you use the language" of World War III. The message then, he said, is "'OK, if we're in the third world war, which side do you think should win?"

An historian, Gingrich said he has been studying recently how Abraham Lincoln talked to Americans about the Civil War, and what turned out to be a much longer and deadlier war than Lincoln expected.

Gingrich is here for fund raisers for Congressman Dave Reichert, 2nd District GOP challenger Doug Roulstone, and the state party. I talked to him in a hotel suite with a few of his and Reichert's staff.

Any time his name comes up here it's said that he once called Washington state "ground zero for the Republican revolution." Republicans saw huge gains in Washington in the 1994 mid-term elections, though they have largely decayed away.

"I think there is a reform oriented populism that is a key a component of Washington State's, if you will, culture or personality," he said. Voters here also got caught up in the national, anti-incumbent, anti-Democratic wave. The other thing that was different here, he said, was "that there was no place in America where talk radio was more enthusiastically favorable to the idea that it was time to try something new."

(Speaking of talk radio, waiting to go in to see Gingrich as I was leaving were KVI's John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur and William Maurer, an attorney with the Institute for Justice who has been backing the talk show hosts in the legal challenge against their on-air championing of an anti-tax initiative.)

With Republicans in control of Washington, D.C., it's Democrats who this year are hoping for a reform wave to sweep them into office. Democrats want to nationalize the election and make each congressional race about Bush, the Iraq war and the Republican agenda. Republicans have been trying to localize each race, as in Reichert's challenge from political newcomer Darcy Burner, and make the race about the qualifications and personalities of the candidates, not about a national agenda.

Gingrich says that's a mistake. Republicans, he says, should nationalize the contest, too. He said that yesterday he saw polling that gave him some optimism for the first time about this year's elections. He didn't say what state it was from, but it showed that Democratic incumbents' poll numbers crashed when tagged with the record of House Democrats.

He said that as Democrats make the elections about George Bush, Republicans should make it about House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco. He said voters need to be told "how weirdly San Francisco these guys are voting" and Democrats will "collapse in defeat."

"The line I think every Republican should use is, 'X knows their record, they just hope you don't,' which is actually the line I used in my winning race in '78. I'm a historian. I don't do anything new. I just imitate. I guarantee you there are 60 or 70 Democrats, if their districts thoroughly understood their record, they'd lose this year even though people aren't happy with Bush. Because people aren't suicidal. ..."

"While people understand that while they may be irritated with Republicans, we at least broadly share their values and visions and the left is just out of touch with reality. I think then you have a totally different debate by October, if we have the nerve to do it. ... There's going to be a national conversation in October. The only question is whether it's the Republicans defining it or whether we have some nutty idea that we can run local races, and so the entire definition is on the left."

UPDATE: I tried to get a comment today from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee but no one ever got back to me. This evening, Kelly Steele, spokesman for the state party, did respond and sent this e-mail:

This is classic - that Gingrich's solution to Bush's failed leadership is a different "marketing strategy" shows the true extent to which Republicans cannot be trusted to win the war on terror. Democrats believe we need a "tough and smart" strategy that makes 2006 a year of transition in Iraq and aggressively takes the fight to the terrorists, while Gingrich and Bush seek to elect a new crop of loyal rubberstamps - McGavick, Reichert, and Roulstone included - to blindly support and extend their monopoly on their "tough and dumb" conduct of the war in Iraq and the larger battle against global terrorism.

Another person on the topic has this to say.

Marty Kaplan: Crisis Porn
Marty Kaplan Fri Jul 14, 4:33 PM ET

It's the start of World War III. It's a tinderbox about to explode. It's a downward-spiraling crisis. It's the tipping-point of a regional conflagration. It could trigger an oil crisis worse than the late '70s, with gas lines and rationing and $20-per-gallon fuel. It could spark worldwide inflation, recession, depression. It's the most dangerous moment since (fill in the blank).

That's what they're saying on the news. And maybe much or most of it is actually true. The world scene is indisputably scary; there really are bad people out there, determined to do terrible things; the quality of US leadership over the past five years is hardly a comforting thing to extrapolate forward from.

But I wonder what portion of what we're getting from the media right now is crisis porn, delivered to an insatiable audience, and itself a possible cause of the escalation of the crisis.

Television news has tremendous ability to control the tone of what it covers. The quantity, the music, the graphics, the word choices can all be dialed up or down. The notion that professional news judgment -- a reliable journalistic rulebook -- is what really drives the nature and kind of coverage: well, that's a sweet thought, and while it may still be true in some broadcasting precincts, mainly public ones, in practice it's pretty much a fossil.

The truth is that a missing white woman can easily be turned by the media machine into a global red-alert, and a holocaust in Africa can effortlessly be marginalized as a sidebar story. What matters most to commercial networks is not context, not perspective, but ratings. And when it comes to holding audiences' attention, the only thing better than suspense is suspense about carnage, and the only thing better than suspense about carnage is suspense about the apocalypse.

Terrorists, especially stateless terrorists, depend on the news's (and news viewers') addicition to fear and crisis. They have gamed the media system; they bank on getting their message amplified. This is not to diminish the legitimate news value of the horrors they perpetrate. But it's also true that attempts to cool things off, reduce tensions, and back off from the brink are at odds with the sexy Nielsens that accompany real-time coverage of the end of the world.

There's no doubt that what's going on in the Middle East right now is awful. But is it really Armageddon? And might saying so perhaps contribute to making it so? It's unfortunate that the arbiter we've depended on in the past to tell us what's really the case -- the news media -- is itself now a stakeholder with a vested interest in imagining the worst.

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

I think that Gingrich is a bit premature.

Gingrich says it's World War III

Posted by David Postman at 12:54 PM

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says America is in World War III and President Bush should say so. In an interview in Bellevue this morning Gingrich said Bush should call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been heard from the president.

My trade paperback copy of Generations says this on the back cover:

Hailed by national leaders as politically diverse as Senator Albert Gore and Representative Newt Gingrich, Generations has been heralded by reviewers as a brilliant, if somewhat unsettling, reassessment of where America is heading.

Looks like Gingrich believes We Be 4T. Interesting.

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

I think that Gingrich is a bit premature.

Gingrich says it's World War III

You should hope that he's not.

Newt meant to say this Turning is for World Wife III. Crisis mode should bring us another Mrs. Gingrich for the Fourth T. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Recall that there may be "a wedding bell in the night"! :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

I attended an OJT class awhile back at which the instructor asked us to define 'consensus'. 90% of the class felt it meant 'unanimous agreement'. He strongly disagreed, insisting that a consensus doesn't have to mean wholehearted, unanimous support for all aspects of a program or agenda. Rather, a consensus is when you have a platform that the majority of stakeholders can live with, if they dislike or even despise portions of it. I agree with him.

When viewed this way, we can see that the problem with developing a consensus in a late 3T is that the Culture Wars adversaries have become so deeply entrenched that many on both sides (but particularly Republicans) feel that it's all-or-nothing. Too many people are not willing to give an inch on a portion of their agenda, even if it means that they get some of what they want. In a 4T Regeneracy, they'll have to decide what is really most important to them, and will vote for the party that can best deliver it.

Agreed on what you say about consensus. Wholehearted unanimous support for anything seems rather implausible just now.

The other element is how tolerable the status quo. People had (and have) strong emotions on the culture wars issues, but the stalemate could go on indefinitely. Peak oil, global warming, related economic issues, terrorism, the US's position in the world, dysfunctional democracy and other issues might not be subject to procrastination.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

I attended an OJT class awhile back at which the instructor asked us to define 'consensus'. 90% of the class felt it meant 'unanimous agreement'. He strongly disagreed, insisting that a consensus doesn't have to mean wholehearted, unanimous support for all aspects of a program or agenda. Rather, a consensus is when you have a platform that the majority of stakeholders can live with, if they dislike or even despise portions of it. I agree with him.

When viewed this way, we can see that the problem with developing a consensus in a late 3T is that the Culture Wars adversaries have become so deeply entrenched that many on both sides (but particularly Republicans) feel that it's all-or-nothing. Too many people are not willing to give an inch on a portion of their agenda, even if it means that they get some of what they want. In a 4T Regeneracy, they'll have to decide what is really most important to them, and will vote for the party that can best deliver it.

Agreed on what you say about consensus. Wholehearted unanimous support for anything seems rather implausible just now.

The other element is how tolerable the status quo. People had (and have) strong emotions on the culture wars issues, but the stalemate could go on indefinitely. Peak oil, global warming, related economic issues, terrorism, the US's position in the world, dysfunctional democracy and other issues might not be subject to procrastination.

True enough. The reasons you list, among others, are why the status quo will not continue indefinitely. Many people will not surrender any of their deeply-held beliefs until they have to, until the price of holding onto them... economic, social, health or life, exceeds that of letting go.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

I think that Gingrich is a bit premature.

Gingrich says it's World War III

Posted by David Postman at 12:54 PM

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says America is in World War III and President Bush should say so. In an interview in Bellevue this morning Gingrich said Bush should call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been heard from the president.

My trade paperback copy of Generations says this on the back cover:

Hailed by national leaders as politically diverse as Senator Albert Gore and Representative Newt Gingrich, Generations has been heralded by reviewers as a brilliant, if somewhat unsettling, reassessment of where America is heading.

Looks like Gingrich believes We Be 4T. Interesting.

Or he could be spinning to define the crisis in terms of the War on Terror or Clash of Civilizations. The tentative 'netroots' alternate definition is focused more on 'phased withdrawal' and reinvigorating democracy.

My reading is that the Bush administration is leaning away from its first term 'cowboy diplomacy.' He is working more to make friends with alienated foreign powers, distancing himself from the old preemptive unilateral stance, organizing a phased withdrawal, while not admitting mistakes and fixing maximum blame on his rivals for being right all along. Gingrich seems still attached to the old cold war superpower perspective, that the world is our problem, and it is up to us to fix it?

Yes, Gingritch wants to play a variation of the beat chest "Republicans Strong On Defense" card. He might well even believe it the best course. Of course, Bush has been playing this card for years, and has played it to rather poor approval ratings.

Interesting times.

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

In the 1930s (according to this website), the Missionary socialists, communists, anarchists, fascists, and economic liberals debated bitterly with one another over which was the "one true ideology". Missionary to Missionary conversation was often very vitriolic. Among the GIs, however, a clear consensus (as explained by Kevin) had developed by 1933 among activists. Of course, they still argued about socialism vs. capitalism vs fascism vs. liberalism, etc. But forming a consensus on basic issues allowed them to work together to implement solutions. We increasingly see a similar picture emerge today. We saw this during the Dean campaign and the subsequent inauguration of netroots politics. And today, we can see the workings of communities forming a consensus on "matters of principal" such as net neutrality a cause which is represented by pretty much the entire political spectrum. The regeneracy itself may be near.

The 'netroots' and the Dean movement represent a decrease in consensus, not an increase. The Deaniacs are, in essence, the McGovernites + 30 years (in terms of ideology and outlook), and there's nothing new about them, and they most certainly don't represent even a consensus within the Democratic Party. If anything, they're working to drive away anyone who disagrees with them.

We haven't even (quite) reached the Crisis yet, though it may be very close at hand now.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

I think that Gingrich is a bit premature.

Gingrich says it's World War III

Posted by David Postman at 12:54 PM

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says America is in World War III and President Bush should say so. In an interview in Bellevue this morning Gingrich said Bush should call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been heard from the president.

My trade paperback copy of Generations says this on the back cover:

Hailed by national leaders as politically diverse as Senator Albert Gore and Representative Newt Gingrich, Generations has been heralded by reviewers as a brilliant, if somewhat unsettling, reassessment of where America is heading.

Looks like Gingrich believes We Be 4T. Interesting.

Or he could be spinning to define the crisis in terms of the War on Terror or Clash of Civilizations. The tentative 'netroots' alternate definition is focused more on 'phased withdrawal' and reinvigorating democracy.

My reading is that the Bush administration is leaning away from its first term 'cowboy diplomacy.' He is working more to make friends with alienated foreign powers, distancing himself from the old preemptive unilateral stance, organizing a phased withdrawal, while not admitting mistakes and fixing maximum blame on his rivals for being right all along. Gingrich seems still attached to the old cold war superpower perspective, that the world is our problem, and it is up to us to fix it?

Yes, Gingritch wants to play a variation of the beat chest "Republicans Strong On Defense" card. He might well even believe it the best course. Of course, Bush has been playing this card for years, and has played it to rather poor approval ratings.

Interesting times.

Bob Butler has covered a lot of what I was planning to say. I will add however that in talking about "running against San Francisco Democrats" as he did in the first of Mr. Reed's postings, he is activly trying to incorporate the 3t culture war into what will be if he's right, the first 4t midterm.

Dangerous. Very dangerous.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

I think that Gingrich is a bit premature.

Gingrich says it's World War III

Posted by David Postman at 12:54 PM

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says America is in World War III and President Bush should say so. In an interview in Bellevue this morning Gingrich said Bush should call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been heard from the president.

My trade paperback copy of Generations says this on the back cover:

Hailed by national leaders as politically diverse as Senator Albert Gore and Representative Newt Gingrich, Generations has been heralded by reviewers as a brilliant, if somewhat unsettling, reassessment of where America is heading.

Looks like Gingrich believes We Be 4T. Interesting.

Or he could be spinning to define the crisis in terms of the War on Terror or Clash of Civilizations. The tentative 'netroots' alternate definition is focused more on 'phased withdrawal' and reinvigorating democracy.

My reading is that the Bush administration is leaning away from its first term 'cowboy diplomacy.' He is working more to make friends with alienated foreign powers, distancing himself from the old preemptive unilateral stance, organizing a phased withdrawal, while not admitting mistakes and fixing maximum blame on his rivals for being right all along.

You're mistaking the current MsM spin for reality. That's the impression they want to create in hopes of putting the Democrats back in power, but it's mostly false.

Gingrich seems still attached to the old cold war superpower perspective, that the world is our problem, and it is up to us to fix it?

The world is our problem, and we are the only ones able and willing to fix it.

If we don't, it won't get done except in ways that hurt us. Europe is irrelevant, nobody cares what they think and nobody will until they take steps to increase their hard power, Russia and China are in it for themselves and any solution they impose will benefit them to our loss, Israel is playing to win, not to reach any new equilibrium, and the old G.I./Adaptive international system is collapsing around us.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Bob Butler has covered a lot of what I was planning to say. I will add however that in talking about "running against San Francisco Democrats" as he did in the first of Mr. Reed's postings, he is activly trying to incorporate the 3t culture war into what will be if he's right, the first 4t midterm.

Dangerous. Very dangerous.

I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept that the cultural divide is not going away by magic. It's not something purely 3T-ish and it won't fade away just because oil runs out or a war starts. We can bet on the cutlure war being part of the 4T.

Instead, a massive external crisis will cause each side to demand that the other 'get serious' and quit obsessing over trivia, since deep down, each side sees the other side's culture-collision concerns as trivial (if not malicious).

The GOP will run against San Francisco Democrats' because those issues motivate their base. Their base sees them as survivial issues for the country. The Left will continue running against 'the Christian bigots' and the South because their base sees that as a survivial issue for the country.

They're arguing over the fundamental definition of what America is and should be. Neither side is currently interested in compromise and as Boomers increasingly dominate the movement the hard-liners will gain in strength for some time yet.

The bottom line is that there's probably nothing that will make the Right drop their objections to the Left's cultural agenda, and vice versa. It's either a compromise in which both sides make massive concessions, or disaster.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Bob Butler has covered a lot of what I was planning to say. I will add however that in talking about "running against San Francisco Democrats" as he did in the first of Mr. Reed's postings, he is activly trying to incorporate the 3t culture war into what will be if he's right, the first 4t midterm.

Dangerous. Very dangerous.

I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept that the cultural divide is not going away by magic. It's not something purely 3T-ish and it won't fade away just because oil runs out or a war starts. We can bet on the cutlure war being part of the 4T.

Instead, a massive external crisis will cause each side to demand that the other 'get serious' and quit obsessing over trivia, since deep down, each side sees the other side's culture-collision concerns as trivial (if not malicious).

The GOP will run against San Francisco Democrats' because those issues motivate their base. Their base sees them as survivial issues for the country. The Left will continue running against 'the Christian bigots' and the South because their base sees that as a survivial issue for the country.

They're arguing over the fundamental definition of what America is and should be. Neither side is currently interested in compromise and as Boomers increasingly dominate the movement the hard-liners will gain in strength for some time yet.

The bottom line is that there's probably nothing that will make the Right drop their objections to the Left's cultural agenda, and vice versa. It's either a compromise in which both sides make massive concessions, or disaster.

If that happens, if the 4T arises as a result of the complete entrenchment of a majority of Americans, with no room for compromise whatsoever, then we're in for a repeat of the Civil War Crisis. The core issues will be different... and it won't (necessarily) happen on a discrete North-South line... but the effects will likely be just as devastating if not worse. Imagine Western Washington and Oregon going to war against the eastern portion of their states + Idaho over abortion and assisted suicide? California and Arizona duking it out over their share of Colorado River water? Wyoming wanting to turn Yellowstone into a strip mine, and Southwest Montana saying "hell fu@&ing no"? All with a broke Federal government unable or unwilling to intervene.

It could happen that way... however I'd still put money on the Crisis being external rather than internal.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Bob Butler has covered a lot of what I was planning to say. I will add however that in talking about "running against San Francisco Democrats" as he did in the first of Mr. Reed's postings, he is activly trying to incorporate the 3t culture war into what will be if he's right, the first 4t midterm.

Dangerous. Very dangerous.

I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept that the cultural divide is not going away by magic. It's not something purely 3T-ish and it won't fade away just because oil runs out or a war starts. We can bet on the cutlure war being part of the 4T.

Instead, a massive external crisis will cause each side to demand that the other 'get serious' and quit obsessing over trivia, since deep down, each side sees the other side's culture-collision concerns as trivial (if not malicious).

The GOP will run against San Francisco Democrats' because those issues motivate their base. Their base sees them as survivial issues for the country. The Left will continue running against 'the Christian bigots' and the South because their base sees that as a survivial issue for the country.

They're arguing over the fundamental definition of what America is and should be. Neither side is currently interested in compromise and as Boomers increasingly dominate the movement the hard-liners will gain in strength for some time yet.

The bottom line is that there's probably nothing that will make the Right drop their objections to the Left's cultural agenda, and vice versa. It's either a compromise in which both sides make massive concessions, or disaster.

If that happens, if the 4T arises as a result of the complete entrenchment of a majority of Americans, with no room for compromise whatsoever, then we're in for a repeat of the Civil War Crisis. The core issues will be different... and it won't (necessarily) happen on a discrete North-South line... but the effects will likely be just as devastating if not worse.

Almost surely far worse. The Civil War killed ~2% of the population, devastated nearly half the country (as it was then) and left scars that have yet to full heal. Another such war would be far worse, esp. since it would have a significant chance of going nuclear.

I've had that nightmare since my early teens, long before I ever heard of S&H, I sensed that the potential for it existed in the arguments that arose between 1965 and 1985. Not a sure thing, but I sensed that it could happen, and my studies of history did nothing to assuage that.

It could happen that way... however I'd still put money on the Crisis being external rather than internal.

Yes, I agree with that. I'm fundamentally optimistic, in the long haul. But the risk does exist...and a Crisis can be both internal and external, or one can lead to the other.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Bob Butler has covered a lot of what I was planning to say. I will add however that in talking about "running against San Francisco Democrats" as he did in the first of Mr. Reed's postings, he is actively trying to incorporate the 3t culture war into what will be if he's right, the first 4t midterm.

Dangerous. Very dangerous.

I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept that the cultural divide is not going away by magic. It's not something purely 3T-ish and it won't fade away just because oil runs out or a war starts. We can bet on the culture war being part of the 4T.

Sorry, but you haven't been on the planet long enough to make this kind of grandiose statement. The 3T Culture Wars Circus was created by a few now-long-in-the-tooth Fundgelicals, and it's a lot thinner that you think. Remember, this is not the first case of a Bible Thumping Political Revival, and it won't be the last, and, like all the others, it will fade away. If it doesn't, the country will be torn apart.

If we are to exist in the future it must be as a secular society. There is too much diversity for any other alternative. No religion can or should dictate in the USA, atheism included. I suspect we'll become agnostic on the public surface and maintain religiosity at home

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

... Instead, a massive external crisis will cause each side to demand that the other 'get serious' and quit obsessing over trivia, since deep down, each side sees the other side's culture-collision concerns as trivial (if not malicious).

The GOP will run against San Francisco Democrats' because those issues motivate their base. Their base sees them as survival issues for the country. The Left will continue running against 'the Christian bigots' and the South because their base sees that as a survival issue for the country.

I agree this will go on for a while, but I'll be surprised if these issues are still power-keg explosive in 10 years. In fact, five may do it.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

... They're arguing over the fundamental definition of what America is and should be. Neither side is currently interested in compromise and as Boomers increasingly dominate the movement the hard-liners will gain in strength for some time yet.

The bottom line is that there's probably nothing that will make the Right drop their objections to the Left's cultural agenda, and vice versa. It's either a compromise in which both sides make massive concessions, or disaster.

There won't be concessions; there will be disengagement.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

And this is a big part of why I say that we are still 3t. There's going to have to be a lot more specific hardship on a daily basis for several years before a regeneracy can be formed around a new ethos. The main reason why I think that this 3t is lasting so long is because the GI's did such a good job of bringing many of their missionary parents' dreams into real world reality that the system continues to function well enough to prevent total collapse long beyond when historical models would suggest that it could.

Now that's an interesting theory. Herbal Tee, this probably deserves it's own thread.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

If that happens, if the 4T arises as a result of the complete entrenchment of a majority of Americans, with no room for compromise whatsoever, then we're in for a repeat of the Civil War Crisis. The core issues will be different... and it won't (necessarily) happen on a discrete North-South line... but the effects will likely be just as devastating if not worse. Imagine Western Washington and Oregon going to war against the eastern portion of their states + Idaho over abortion and assisted suicide? California and Arizona duking it out over their share of Colorado River water? Wyoming wanting to turn Yellowstone into a strip mine, and Southwest Montana saying "hell fu@&ing no"? All with a broke Federal government unable or unwilling to intervene.

It could happen that way... however I'd still put money on the Crisis being external rather than internal.

I'm having trouble envisioning the sort of conflicts you are describing. Before a crisis scale conflict, I would expect a spiral of violence as each side tries to convince the other that they are serious. In recent years, with incidents like September 11th and the OKC bombings, both the Red and Blue cultures have come forward and rejected violence as a means for inducing political change. While I've felt all sorts of disconnects between Red and Blue, between what either group's politicians say and what they do, between the main stream media and the people, the rejection of terror within the US seems to feel true, still.

This could change. I'd watch for it. People might start murdering abortion doctors again. The BATF and FBI might resume that escalating series of conflicts with conservative militias that led to OKC. Liberals have causes too. Greenpeace might start sabotaging pollution causing infrastructure.

But the spiral of rhetoric isn't even there yet, let alone a spiral of violence. Before the radical fringe nuts (either fringe) start shooting and setting bombs, there ought to be slightly less radical fringe politicians and media hotheads saying such violence would be understandable, justified and if Jesus were here, he'd help wire the explosives. Both the conservative talk show crazies and the lefty netroots crazies go quite far, but the build up to internal conflict isn't really there.

Again, this could change, but right now the gut check first reaction to internal violence is to reject the ideas of the violent. Until this rather firm values set changes, I'd watch political processes more than military balances of power.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Newt meant to say this Turning is for World Wife III.

Hey, that's very funny. :wink:

Gingrich says it's World War III

Posted by David Postman at 12:54 PM

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says America is in World War III and President Bush should say so. In an interview in Bellevue this morning Gingrich said Bush should call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been heard from the president.

"We need to have the militancy that says 'We're not going to lose a city,' " Gingrich said. He talks about the need to recognize World War III as important for military strategy and political strategy.

Gingrich said he is "very worried" about Republican's facing fall elections and says the party must have the "nerve" to nationalize the elections and make the 2006 campaigns about a liberal Democratic agenda rather than about President Bush's record.


Typical Republican Strategy: If Gay Marriage doesnt work, maybe illegal fruitpickers will, and if that doesn't work...flag burning? Cut and Runners? Stem cells? Bible thumping? No, let's go for WWIII!!!

Brother they are really a piece of work. Sell out their country for an election. Traitors, every last one of them.

Traitors, every last one of them.

PS If this is WWIII, let's hope President Bush installs the draft PDQ. The National Guard is a bit tired to tame the world these days...

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

I think that Gingrich is a bit premature.

Gingrich says it's World War III

You should hope that he's not.

Why should I hope not?