You know, it just occurred to me that if I hadn't been so much into the S&H theory over the last six to seven years, and participated on this forum as much as I have, I might actually be supporting Hillary with some enthusiasm, and I wouldn't be wringing my hands over when this goldarn regeneracy is going to happen.

Not saying it's a good or bad thing, just an observation.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

You know, it just occurred to me that if I hadn't been so much into the S&H theory over the last six to seven years, and participated on this forum as much as I have, I might actually be supporting Hillary with some enthusiasm, and I wouldn't be wringing my hands over when this goldarn regeneracy is going to happen.

Not saying it's a good or bad thing, just an observation.

Yep! Having read a number of interesting things like Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed, by Jared Diamond, and S&H's T4T, Generations and 13th Gen, have made me aware of the more subtle indicators, shifts in public mood, than I would have been otherwise. I'd too be fully in the throwes of current political debate. However, I don't see the need for that now. Instead, I'm preping my self and family for the long haul with the hopes that it will be a benefit as things get tougher, wierder and wilder.

MaryT makes some interesting comments:

~~About the whole "Gray Champion" thing, I'd have to say GWB certainly isn't champion material. Chimp material yes, but Champion no. However, in reading S&H's stuff as well as Jared Diamond's work, I'd have to say the "Gray Champion" concept DOESN'T APPLY TO AN ACTUAL PERSON but rather applies to a portion of the public. A mood among the Prophet generation of the crisis time. It may be exemplified in certain public figures, but that's not the GC's totality. Rather I think of the GC as archetypal and representative of the values centered inclinations of the aging Prophets made real and actionable. Remember, in S&H's work, the GC simply appears at a time and place (catylist event) mutters some key points and disappears into the crowd. He's part and parcel the materialization of Prophet thinking.

~~ I dont think the Dems will implode. Rather, even if they don't win, I think they are FINALLY getting a handle on how to reapproach politics. I think they'll be a growing force (for better or for worse) as we move on. Remember, the entire 3T has been dominated by the Republicans. As cycles go, they are likely cycling out. Just look at what's happening in state and local politics. It always trickles up.

~~~ Third party? Looks like we may get a 3rd party of far right republican evangelical neocons breaking away from the Republican party. WHAT A GIFT!!!!!! I do sincerely hope this comes to pass. Nothing would make me happier than to see this segment (cyst) of America wall itself off into a third, and clearly inert, third party. Personally, I'd like to give them the Florida to call their own. Possibly they could set up their own little republic or something.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Wiz - I've heard Patsy Madrid will try for his seat. Say it isn't so! Talk about ensuring a GOP victory! Heather Wilson cleaned her clock once and may do so again, this time for the Senate.

Madrid lost by 875 votes -- hardly a "clock-cleaning", more what I'd call "another stolen election." And Wilson is currently under a cloud of suspicion for her role in the firing of US Attorney David Iglesias.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

....

MaryT makes some interesting comments:

~~About the whole "Gray Champion" thing, I'd have to say GWB certainly isn't champion material. Chimp material yes, but Champion no. However, in reading S&H's stuff as well as Jared Diamond's work, I'd have to say the "Gray Champion" concept DOESN'T APPLY TO AN ACTUAL PERSON but rather applies to a portion of the public. A mood among the Prophet generation of the crisis time. It may be exemplified in certain public figures, but that's not the GC's totality. Rather I think of the GC as archetypal and representative of the values centered inclinations of the aging Prophets made real and actionable. Remember, in S&H's work, the GC simply appears at a time and place (catylist event) mutters some key points and disappears into the crowd. He's part and parcel the materialization of Prophet thinking....

This has been something that has always bothered me about the S&H theory - the key role of the prophets. Yes, you have your FDR and Lincoln, but Ben Franklin? He was late to the party and while he threw in a few quips here and there, I don't think he comes anywhere close to John Adam and other nomads in being the force behind it (the Heros were pretty much following along, including note-taker Jefferson). And when the last 4T turned deadly (i.e., WW2), I would have to say a lot of nomads were getting things to move along at least as much behind the scenes as FDR was doing the radio thingee. And it sure seems like all hell breaking loose on the battlefields in the Civil War is a little bit characteristic of Nomads being set loose perhaps a little too early in their maturation process.

I think there's a lot of discounting (good and bad) of nomads in each turning. The perception of Boomers as 2T inter-generational rebels seems like a joke compared to late 2T and 3T body-piercing nomads. It’s kind of like how Boomers think of themselves of making individualist-type sports (e.g. surfing, skateboarding, MotoX) a big deal, but the extent and skills displayed in (Gen)Xgames easily eclipse whatever Boomers could even dream about. It's just that Boomers made it first popular so they get the due. This might be true of music as well.

I’ve already mentioned to you about my views of Nomads in 1Ts -- their checking the Heroes’ hubris might be at least as important as the Nomad contribution in 4Ts.

As for the current 3T/4T cusp, I think the key right now is watching the Nomads -- the GenX this time around. Watch their collective 3T apathy and/or cynicism turn to something else -- then, watch out!

Originally Posted by MaryT

... the Bush administration took us in a substantially new direction both here and abroad. The country has not rejected much of his agenda; certainly not his general direction.

Huh?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071002/...Rt8Kc8M.Ss0NUE

Only about 25 percent of Americans support the administration's $190 billion war funding request; 70 percent want the proposed allocation reduced, the Post said.

According to the poll, more than seven in 10 support the planned $35 billion increase included in legislation that would renew the children's health care program administered by the states. Twenty-five percent oppose the increased spending, the Post said.

Don't let the nuances of the House veto override and the Senate fillibuster fool you. Those practicing hinderance of the public's desires will pay for it next November!

Originally Posted by Skabungus

~~~ Third party? Looks like we may get a 3rd party of far right republican evangelical neocons breaking away from the Republican party. WHAT A GIFT!!!!!! I do sincerely hope this comes to pass. Nothing would make me happier than to see this segment (cyst) of America wall itself off into a third, and clearly inert, third party. Personally, I'd like to give them the Florida to call their own. Possibly they could set up their own little republic or something.

I like this idea, though the choice of state may be open to discussion. Texas is already more in the RW neo-theo-con camp, and appears to be one of the few places on the face of the earth that is moving further that way.

Texas was a republic once, they can do it again, though we should remove the nukes, first.

Originally Posted by Finch

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I've heard Patsy Madrid will try for his (Domenici's) seat. Say it isn't so! Talk about ensuring a GOP victory! Heather Wilson cleaned her clock once and may do so again, this time for the Senate.

Madrid lost by 875 votes -- hardly a "clock-cleaning", more what I'd call "another stolen election." And Wilson is currently under a cloud of suspicion for her role in the firing of US Attorney David Iglesias.

Assuming that Bill Richardson can't swing the Presidency this time, is he a possibility? He would be hard to beat.

Originally Posted by playwrite

This has been something that has always bothered me about the S&H theory - the key role of the prophets.

Yep, I agree, however, I begrudingly acknowledge it, because, even if the Prophets arent out there leading the charge of action (certainly a nomad thing! think of US Grant and Geo. Smith Patton) the prophets were certianly setting the musical score so to speak. What's a shame is that Grant is remembered for being a drunk and a bad president, and Patton remembered for slapping a coward instead of both being remembered for KICKING THE LIVING SHIT OUT OF EVIL WITH UNMITIGATED SPEED which is, after all just what the prophets, nomads and heros were united to do.

there's a lot of discounting (good and bad) of nomads in each turning. The perception of Boomers as 2T inter-generational rebels seems like a joke compared to late 2T and 3T body-piercing nomads. It’s kind of like how Boomers think of themselves of making individualist-type sports (e.g. surfing, skateboarding, MotoX) a big deal, but the extent and skills displayed in (Gen)Xgames easily eclipse whatever Boomers could even dream about. It's just that Boomers made it first popular so they get the due. This might be true of music as well.

Yep, sigh, but I'll not lose sleep over it. In fact I take a little joy in watching bombastic booomers wax poetic about their contributions to the above mentioned because they often get it wrong and look foolish....which causes the image of superiority to crumble quickly. And after all, they're not all bad, just look at Jane Fonda! She's still got the perfect ass!

the current 3T/4T cusp, I think the key right now is watching the Nomads -- the GenX this time around. Watch their collective 3T apathy and/or cynicism turn to something else -- then, watch out!

Amen. I've been noting the rapidity with which Xers are taking mayoral, council and city manager jobs. As well, they seem to be creeping into the state houses where upon they receive a lot of eyerolling and sneers from the boomer "statesmen". Yet, when the shit goes down with increasing speed, I think some of these Xers will keep cool enough heads to cobble together the bond issues, budgets and action plans to keep things on track while boomers feud.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I like this idea, though the choice of state may be open to discussion. Texas is already more in the RW neo-theo-con camp, and appears to be one of the few places on the face of the earth that is moving further that way.

Texas was a republic once, they can do it again, though we should remove the nukes, first.

I stand corrected! Texas is a far superior choice. Certainly it would put a new twist on the "secure borders" issue. We'd not have to worry so much about illegal aliens crossing along that stretch, but, we might have the new concern of Theo-con suicide bombers crossing over to blow up buses, clinics and office buildings in Oklahoma............

Originally Posted by MaryT

I was convinced that Bush’s reelection in 2004 signaled that T4T had indeed begun on 9/11 and presumably ‘W’ was the new grey champion. Then Katrina blew through and Bush appears to be a rejected champion. But as KaiserD2 points out, the Bush administration took us in a substantially new direction both here and abroad. The country has not rejected much of his agenda; certainly not his general direction.

My world history is not strong enough to know if there have been rejected grey champions in the past.

Others on this thread are basically right that the Champion doesn't necessarily refer to a single person. However, 4T leaders have been rejected. Earlier in his career, Winston Churchill was basically voted out of office because he was saying the same things about Hitler that Bush is saying about Islamic terrorism. The liberals of his time were calling him an incompetent war monger. Sound familiar? It wasn't until the threat of the Nazi movement became much more direct and imminent that he was able to return to office. By that time, it had become clear to a majority of the population that something needed to be done - no matter what the cost. But, this came relatively late in the 4th T.

Originally Posted by MaryT

So what happens now? If a Republican wins 2008 does he automatically become grey champion? Guiliani? Does a Democratic win put T4T on pause? It’s hard to see Hillary pulling the country together and moving forward, a premature Ike indeed. But what about Obama?

It may change the timing and method of resolution a bit. Conservatives are pushing military action now. Liberals have more of a wait and see attitude. Continuing the Churchill analogy, it was much the same in World War 2. The liberals won for a time. But, despite Neville Chamberlain's public rhetoric that Hitler should be appeased, he was no fool. He was also quietly building up Britain's military in preparation for the coming storm. FDR's early actions were very similar, publicly reassuring his isolationist base, while quietly trying to find an excuse to bring us into the war.

I suspect any Democrat elected would have a similar approach to that of Chamberlain or FDR. Note that all of the top tier Democratic candidates have refused to commit to a full scale departure from Iraq even by 2013. Moreover, the Democratic led congress has refused to end a war that they could stop simply by cutting the budget for it. They're no fools either. They don't want to risk the possibility of being wrong in so grave a matter.

Meanwhile, conservatives are urging action sooner rather than later. Continuing the analogy, their argument is that Hitler could have been removed at a much lower cost in lives and treasure if the allies had gone after him much earlier - before he built his massive war machine and raided the wealth of half of Europe to fund it. As it was, the war cost the US fully one third of its GDP for five years straight. That's an unbelievable figure by today's standards. We're griping about a war that's costing us 2-3% of our current GDP. And of course, that's not to mention that millions actually lost their lives in that war. But, of course, any reduction in cost or lives that may have occurred if we went after Hitler earlier is merely theoretical - as is its potential applicability to the current crisis.

Originally Posted by MaryT

Can we get through this election without a new political party? I can’t imagine the country accepting a Clinton/Guiliani choice. And if the Republican’s really do figure a way to win, doesn’t the Democratic party implode?

It is truly sad that the parties have become so unresponsive to the general public. Our choice has been truly pathetic for most of the last 20 years. Still, Rudy is the most centrist presidential candidate the Republican party has deigned to give us in that period.

The Democratic party has a distinct popularity advantage at the moment. I wouldn't expect that to completely go away even if their presidential candidate doesn't win. So, no. They won't implode. Considering how angry their rhetoric has been lately, though. I would expect some of them to have heart attacks.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

Yep, I agree, however, I begrudingly acknowledge it, because, even if the Prophets arent out there leading the charge of action (certainly a nomad thing! think of US Grant and Geo. Smith Patton) the prophets were certianly setting the musical score so to speak. What's a shame is that Grant is remembered for being a drunk and a bad president, and Patton remembered for slapping a coward instead of both being remembered for KICKING THE LIVING SHIT OUT OF EVIL WITH UNMITIGATED SPEED which is, after all just what the prophets, nomads and heros were united to do.



Yep, sigh, but I'll not lose sleep over it. In fact I take a little joy in watching bombastic booomers wax poetic about their contributions to the above mentioned because they often get it wrong and look foolish....which causes the image of superiority to crumble quickly. And after all, they're not all bad, just look at Jane Fonda! She's still got the perfect ass!




Amen. I've been noting the rapidity with which Xers are taking mayoral, council and city manager jobs. As well, they seem to be creeping into the state houses where upon they receive a lot of eyerolling and sneers from the boomer "statesmen". Yet, when the shit goes down with increasing speed, I think some of these Xers will keep cool enough heads to cobble together the bond issues, budgets and action plans to keep things on track while boomers feud.

Damn! I'm a boomer and I have to agree with everything you said here (especially Fonda's ass!). "Bombastic boomers" - I love it! That's going into the stage play I'm working on!

I think George C. Scott got Patton untangled; my Milli son (Army) now loves the General.

I think Grant's inability to check his 1T is just another element of the Civil War 4T coming on too fast and too hard (maybe we deserved it with slavery being as ethically low as you can get). I think we're missing that situation today -- we came close (9/11 et al.), but I say, pseudo-4T and thank God! I want more GenX, matured, engaged and in as many "hot" positions as possible before it hits!

-- Maybe that will leave me and Jane to head to the hills together and sit it out for the duration! Not sure the Xer wife would go for that though.

What if the best reason for remaining in Iraq is to PREVENT Iraqi factions from ever settling their feuds and uniting as a cohesive state again? Partition without drawing hard lines. Partition with chaos. Infame the middle east, focus their attention on the conflict, draw their radicals to the forefront and thereby, cause an over all deterioration regionally, of state structures, religious relationships, and economic stability.

The strange attractor.

Just a brain fart. Probably a flashback from the shooms I ate on my 30th birthday.

Originally Posted by stilltim

Meanwhile, conservatives are urging action sooner rather than later. Continuing the analogy, their argument is that Hitler could have been removed at a much lower cost in lives and treasure if the allies had gone after him much earlier - before he built his massive war machine and raided the wealth of half of Europe to fund it. ...

And exactly what urgent action are the conservatives desiring?

And what rational fear is driving that desire? Anything comparable to Nazi Germany?

You might want to check out this concept -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Originally Posted by Skabungus

What if the best reason for remaining in Iraq is to PREVENT Iraqi factions from ever settling their feuds and uniting as a cohesive state again? Partition without drawing hard lines. Partition with chaos. Infame the middle east, focus their attention on the conflict, draw their radicals to the forefront and thereby, cause an over all deterioration regionally, of state structures, religious relationships, and economic stability.

The strange attractor.

Just a brain fart. Probably a flashback from the shooms I ate on my 30th birthday.

Now that's one evil brain fart!

And to what end, my local Machiavelli?!

To what end? Why these might just do:

1. To just keep the entire region in a snit preventing any cohesive Pan Islamic thingee from taking shape.

2. To keep the military industrial complex here knee deep in fat contracts.

3. To keep oil futures high for as long as possible.

4. To keep the focus OFF of other less than wholesome and less than visible agenda items here at home and abroad.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

Yep, I agree, however, I begrudingly acknowledge it, because, even if the Prophets arent out there leading the charge of action (certainly a nomad thing! think of US Grant and Geo. Smith Patton) the prophets were certianly setting the musical score so to speak. What's a shame is that Grant is remembered for being a drunk and a bad president, and Patton remembered for slapping a coward instead of both being remembered for KICKING THE LIVING SHIT OUT OF EVIL WITH UNMITIGATED SPEED which is, after all just what the prophets, nomads and heros were united to do.

Most likely, one Boom elite will supplant another. The new elite is likely to seek a more sustainable and equitable America -- and it will welcome Generation X pragmatism to make the lofty dreams work. So it was with FDR and so it can be with #44. Dubya has surrounded himself with doddering Silent such as Rumsfeld and group-thinking yes-men... which is weak leadership, the sort that a people gets when it wants leadership that offers little and demands less, only to try to force history to fit the Leader's whim.

But the caricature of General Patton as

KICKING THE LIVING SHIT OUT OF EVIL WITH UNMITIGATED SPEED

causes one to ask where the unmitigated evil came from. Patton, Eisenhower, Bradley, and Nimitz were from the same generation that started the war of conquest in Eurasia, ravaged the economic resources and people of occupied countries, established torture chambers and death camps, and arranged death marches for captured prisoners (Bataan, Corregidor)... and had made plans for imposing such horrors in lands that they intended to conquer. Like Australia.

Heed one of the warnings of Howe and Strauss: that the worst sort of leadership in a Great Crisis is that Reactive leadership that has shoved aside the last moral traces of an earlier Idealist leadership on grounds that victory matters more than does principle. A lack of principles ensures that one creates enemies out of those that one might need as allies -- and tends to make catastrophic defeat all the more likely.

Idealists have proved themselves the only generation effective in the greatest Crises of establishing the moral purpose of Great Struggles. Adaptives, however decent, let their sentimentality get in the way. Civics are unable to formulate ethical conduct; they need others to do so for them. Reactives may find moral codes useful for their purposes -- if someone supplies them, and those codes don't restrict them too harshly. Of course, the Idealist virtues (culture, decisiveness, principle) must overpower the idealist vices (arrogance, selfishness, and ruthlessness) or at least make them useful. (Dubya and those around him seem to show all of the vices and little of the virtue).

It's clear that the hippies of the 1960s won't provide the moral principles for the coming Great Struggle; they created a culture, but "Turn on, tune in, drop out" is hardly a basis for meeting any challenge. The Dubya-era Corporatists (the definitive example of a Me Generation) and the anti-rational Fundies are largely discredited now; they will not set the tone.

We are over-ripe for a Big Tent America, one that offers prosperity for all except for some lucky or well-connected Few. We could be in for some unpleasant events that will force Americans to choose between class privilege and personal survival. Think "Dust Bowl" as a consequence of Global Warming. Think "1929-1933 Crash" as a consequence of an economic system adept only at cracking the whip and indulging bosses, shareholders, and well-connected people. Think of Peak Oil as a prospect. Does anyone want to commit to $5 a gallon gasoline to get to $3-an-hour jobs?

The leadership of an America that can meet such ugliness won't be hippies who offer LSD as an alternative to food and shelter. They won't be the corporatist exploiters who offer to squeeze us harder for our supposed good. They won't be the Fundies who claim that all that we need to do is to get back in God's Good Graces by abandoning abortion, homosexuality, soft porn, feminism, and evolution -- the Fundies have never solved any technological questions but have instead exploited technology to propagandize us.

Yep, sigh, but I'll not lose sleep over it. In fact I take a little joy in watching bombastic boomers wax poetic about their contributions to the above mentioned because they often get it wrong and look foolish....which causes the image of superiority to crumble quickly. And after all, they're not all bad, just look at Jane Fonda! She's still got the perfect ass!

Jane Fonda is a Silent. Diane Keaton really is a Boomer.

That said, it may be the less bombastic ones, the ones who might listen to pragmatic members of Generation X and direction-craving Millennial young adults who want to create a friendly, communitarian, techno-utopia. Maybe a non-Boom world, but what the heck? By 2035 most Boomers will be too old to see much trouble in a world similar to the 1950s.

Amen. I've been noting the rapidity with which Xers are taking mayoral, council and city manager jobs. As well, they seem to be creeping into the state houses where upon they receive a lot of eyerolling and sneers from the boomer "statesmen". Yet, when the shit goes down with increasing speed, I think some of these Xers will keep cool enough heads to cobble together the bond issues, budgets and action plans to keep things on track while boomers feud.

In practice, such is where the political innovation comes from -- State and local governments. Boomers have approached their peak in control of political office; Generation X (as in Barak Obama) is making its mark.

Originally Posted by Finch

Madrid lost by 875 votes -- hardly a "clock-cleaning", more what I'd call "another stolen election." And Wilson is currently under a cloud of suspicion for her role in the firing of US Attorney David Iglesias.

And I accept voting results. Losing election by a razor-thin margin does not mean that it was stolen. Get over it and grow up. Returning to paper ballots wouldn't solve these supposed problems either. Ever heard of "Ballot stuffing"? Of course, if we abolished voting altogether we sure as hell wouldn't see all these problems. And people's lives would go on just as they always have.

Originally Posted by playwrite

And exactly what urgent action are the conservatives desiring?

And what rational fear is driving that desire? Anything comparable to Nazi Germany?

You might want to check of this concept -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Ah, I see you failed to read my post carefully. If we are in a 4th T, we are clearly in the early stages of it. The equivalent time in the previous cycle would probably be sometime in the 1930s - probably even sometime early in the decade rather than later. What had Hitler done at that point? Very little. The Nazi party came to power in 1933. Hitler started demanding that all German-speaking territories be ceded to him in 1937, but at that time, he was not particularly thought of as a threat to the west. Like Iran's Ahmadinejad, he was largely thought of as a regional nuisance or perhaps even a relatively harmless lunatic. Some even thought that he had every right to unify German speaking countries in the name of nationalism. Even by 1939, when he had invaded Poland, popular opinion said that he was no threat to the west. It was broadly assumed that he would stop his aggression long before he threatened Britain or the US.

I'm simply saying that conservative believe liberals are underestimating Islamic terrorism in the same way that liberals of the last cycle underestimated Hitler.

You might want to check out this concept -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law[/quote]

We're on a forum discussing S&H's theories. Therefore, noting parallels between the same phase of two adjoining cycles IS appropriate.

Originally Posted by stilltim

Ah, I see you failed to read my post carefully. If we are in a 4th T, we are clearly in the early stages of it. The equivalent time in the previous cycle would probably be sometime in the 1930s - probably even sometime early in the decade rather than later. What had Hitler done at that point? Very little. The Nazi party came to power in 1933. Hitler started demanding that all German-speaking territories be ceded to him in 1937, but at that time, he was not particularly thought of as a threat to the west. Like Iran's Ahmadinejad, he was largely thought of as a regional nuisance or perhaps even a relatively harmless lunatic. Some even thought that he had every right to unify German speaking countries in the name of nationalism. Even by 1939, when he had invaded Poland, popular opinion said that he was no threat to the west. It was broadly assumed that he would stop his aggression long before he threatened Britain or the US.

I'm simply saying that conservative believe liberals are underestimating Islamic terrorism in the same way that liberals of the last cycle underestimated Hitler.

So I have to assume two things here -

1. That you're suggesting what conservatives believe is we need to go to war with Iran. But that begs the question: do we need to completely destroy Iran as a nation-state to the extent that we did Germany?

2. That you're suggesting what conservative believe is Iran poses as grave a threat to the world as Germany eventually prove to be during its time. But that begs the question: how? Would nuclear-armed nations, particularly the US, Israel, France and Britain, ever put up with that level of threat again? Or what threats against the world would Iran be willing to risk in face of near-instantaneous total destruction from these other nations? And if such limits do exist to their threats, how do these limited threats compare to those posed by Nazi Germany during its time?

Originally Posted by stilltim

...

We're on a forum discussing S&H's theories. Therefore, noting parallels between the same phase of two adjoining cycles IS appropriate.

Point taken. I just raise the concern that such comparisons should not only be very well thought out and presented but also deemed truly necessary to make one's central point. Or, one risks being considered a little hyperbolic.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

--- and it will welcome Generation X pragmatism to make the lofty dreams work. So it was with FDR and so it can be with #44. Dubya has surrounded himself with doddering Silent such as Rumsfeld and group-thinking yes-men... which is weak leadership, the sort that a people gets when it wants leadership that offers little and demands less, only to try to force history to fit the Leader's whim.

-- this is good stuff! I can buy this.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

--- But the caricature of General Patton as causes one to ask where the unmitigated evil came from. Patton, Eisenhower, Bradley, and Nimitz were from the same generation that started the war of conquest in Eurasia, ravaged the economic resources and people of occupied countries, established torture chambers and death camps, and arranged death marches for captured prisoners (Bataan, Corregidor)... and had made plans for imposing such horrors in lands that they intended to conquer. Like Australia.

Heed one of the warnings of Howe and Strauss: that the worst sort of leadership in a Great Crisis is that Reactive leadership that has shoved aside the last moral traces of an earlier Idealist leadership on grounds that victory matters more than does principle. A lack of principles ensures that one creates enemies out of those that one might need as allies -- and tends to make catastrophic defeat all the more likely.

Idealists have proved themselves the only generation effective in the greatest Crises of establishing the moral purpose of Great Struggles.

-- however, I can't buy this. There was something more to "our Reactives" than was with those others. I don't see (or honestly, don't want to believe) our Nation capable of producing 1930s Germany culture. There was something more to Patton, Eisenhower, Bradley, and Nimitz that differentiated them from their Axis Reactive peers, and I don't buy the "yea, they won" argument. I don't see even Patton putting people in ovens under the worst of circumstances.

Also, with a few more years maturation, I'll take my chances with Reactive leadership than the bonehead boomers (hey, Skabungus, I came up with a good one too!) if the current ones leading us are the examples.

I do like the rest of your thoughts though. Although I'd rather take Jane than Diane to the 4T bunker.

Iran is a threat, but comparing it to Nazi Germany is just stupid hyperbole. Comparing Islamists with Nazis is a stupid right-wing meme that is an insult to the Americans and Europeans that lived through the last 4T.

Originally Posted by playwrite

So I have to assume two things here -

1. That you're suggesting what conservatives believe is we need to go to war with Iran. But that begs the question: do we need to completely destroy Iran as a nation-state to the extent that we did Germany?

No, I'm saying MANY conservatives believe that we need to be aggressively at war with Islamic terrorism in general. Iran's president is a convenient comparison to Hitler because the similarity of their rhetoric and their position as a national leader invites such comparison. But, Islamic extremism isn't contained simply in Iran. We're facing a much broader struggle against an enemy whose borders are much less well defined than Germany's.

Actually, I think you'll find that conservatives are broadly split on the precise tactics to use and whether Iran or some other extremist target is the most important. All I'm trying to say is that, at this point, conservatives are generally advocating more aggression than liberals are.

Originally Posted by playwrite

2. That you're suggesting what conservative believe is Iran poses as grave a threat to the world as Germany eventually prove to be during its time. But that begs the question: how?

Actually, because of the willingness of Islamic terrorists to sacrifice themselves in suicide missions, they have already managed to do more damage to the US homeland than Hitler himself managed to do. What kind of damage do you think these fanatics would be able to do once nuclear weaponry is available to them? A little suitcase bomb in a big city could go a long way. Do you think losing a couple of cities - and their suburbs is an acceptable price for underestimating these guys?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Would nuclear-armed nations, particularly the US, Israel, France and Britain, ever put up with that level of threat again? Or what threats against the world would Iran be willing to risk in face of near-instantaneous total destruction from these other nations? And if such limits do exist to their threats, how do these limited threats compare to those posed by Nazi Germany during its time?

You're talking about folks who are spreading a "my death is OK as long as I take my enemy with me" ideology. Assured destruction hasn't always proven to be a deterrent for these types.

Iran is one thing. How do you assure destruction for a shadowy group like Al Quada without also targeting the 60% of the middle eastern population that don't support them? I don't think they are deterred by such a threat. We'd never go through with it.

As for Iran itself. They are deeply involved in killing American soldiers in Iraq every day. They're building most of the bombs and supply much of the other weaponry. I'd say they're getting away with a great deal without major repercussions. What makes you think they won't delude themselves like Sadam did (twice) into thinking they can get away with just one more little thing?

And don't overestimate the global community's willingness to reach out and stop such an enemy before they became truly dangerous to us. We let India acquire nukes. We let Kim Jung Il get them. He most likely sold the technology to Pakistan - who has a real problem with extremists and whose government actually may end up being controlled by them if Musharrif doesn't play his cards VERY carefully. We keep giving Iran deadline after deadline to stop its nuclear program and it ignores every one. When they do so, we just give them another one.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Point taken. I just raise the concern that such comparisons should not only be very well thought out and presented but also deemed truly necessary to make one's central point. Or, one risks being considered a little hyperbolic.

I've argued the same on other boards. So, there's not much daylight between us on that one.

To answer the implied question here about whether Islamic extremism is really as serious a threat as the Nazi party was... conservatives generally believe it could become so if we allow it to.

The extremists are determined to do us damage and they are not easy to get rid of. We're talking about an ideology that has the support of 40% of the population of a dozen nations, that has additional supporters all over the world and that hides behind innocent civilians - even children. This will not be a straight up fight as it was with Nazi Germany. It may be even worse.

It may well be that we're in for a lot of nightmares before we find a solution to this problem and I suspect the extremists will have plenty of more opportunities to do serious damage before we manage to do so.