Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

I think the regeneracy is going to occur regardless of who we get as president. It will occur with, or without the president elected in 2008. By 2009, global problems will seem far worse than they do now at the rate things are falling apart. Food will be higher, gas will be higher than today, and the economy will likely not be improving. At the same time, global instability will have risen, even in places like the UK. By that time, the problems will be perceived as being much more urgent. If the president proves impotent, the president will be removed, somehow.

I hope you are right. I'm not certain you are.

I see political movements as having life cycles. They start out as rebellion against a stagnant prior approach. They solve real problems, and are much closer to answering the needs and moods of the people than what came immediately before. Still, such movements are prone to stagnation and a sense of entitlement by the participating politicians. There is also a drift of 'ever so much, more so.' If FDR did well with safety nets, by the time we got to LBJ we had entitlements. If Reagan thought government to big and that tax cuts were in order to counter LBJ's excesses, how long can his heirs promise tax cuts and have the result shift from much needed trimming to gutting the core?

I'll take it as given that the Bushes took Reagan's quite worthy and appropriate for its time approach too far. I'll take it as given that the Reagan Bush Bush degeneracy has gone on long enough, that a new arch of politics is called for.

This doesn't mean that everyone senses this. There is still the potential for inertia.

The first level is the people. To many, 'liberal' is still a dirty word. They have vague impressions of the worst aspects of the awakening, and block out the positive aspects of what was achieve by the GI generation. They remember riots, tax and spend, and professional welfare mothers rather than the energy and big successes... containing communism, Apollo, and the post war infrastructure rebuilding. Even the social changes pushed in the 60s have many positive merits, from civil rights to women's rights to environmental awareness. Many refuse to see it. Many do not want to see big government attempting big things again. The problems of the cascade can still be denied. Many can still refuse to see. They just have to see 'liberals' through the deeply distorted lenses of stereotype to avoid living in the real world.

In short, the election is not a gimme. McCain is still in it.

The other level is the politicians. While the Republicans have been the party of the Robber Barons since their beginning, either party will get fat dumb and happy after a long stretch in power. I'm still getting a sense, from both parties, that one can fool most of the people most of the time. There is no urgency to serving the people. Gathering campaign dollars and smooching with the big shots is still perceived as the more important aspects of politics. I don't know that the Democrats are significantly different in this respect from the Republicans.

There are not enough powerful industry leaders pushing to profit from a transformed economy. I'd argue that the Revolution was started in Boston by shipping interests who wanted profits going to Boston rather than London, and thus disliked the colonial imperialism thing. As the Civil War approached, there were many who wanted the federal government to do more to help develop industry, and to open up the west. Prior crises have often featured progressive industries wanting to transform the culture for their own profit motive. I'm not sensing a lot of this today.

And there is the diversity of issues... war, energy, economic, cultural, ecological... Without central defining issues, it is hard to get into focus. There is much to be done, and much it needs doing, but there is no defining sound byte to rally behind.

Anyway, I don't see it as a done deal. I don't know that we will see a progressive president with a solid mandate. I don't know that Congress is apt to be shaken out of its inertia. I do agree that the cascade seems to be cascading. If the economy continues down hill and Iraq remains Iraq, the ice might indeed break.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I hope you are right. I'm not certain you are.

I see political movements as having life cycles. They start out as rebellion against a stagnant prior approach. They solve real problems, and are much closer to answering the needs and moods of the people than what came immediately before. Still, such movements are prone to stagnation and a sense of entitlement by the participating politicians. There is also a drift of 'ever so much, more so.' If FDR did well with safety nets, by the time we got to LBJ we had entitlements. If Reagan thought government to big and that tax cuts were in order to counter LBJ's excesses, how long can his heirs promise tax cuts and have the result shift from much needed trimming to gutting the core?

Quite possibly until the government is bankrupt and must do something drastic to save itself or go down in flames -- like invading and raiding other countries. Nazi Germany was bankrupt throughout its existence, and however totalitarian it was, it was always under popular and commercial pressure to deliver the goods. That is how bad America can go should it not stop the rot.

I'll take it as given that the Bushes took Reagan's quite worthy and appropriate for its time approach too far. I'll take it as given that the Reagan Bush Bush degeneracy has gone on long enough, that a new arch of politics is called for.

This doesn't mean that everyone senses this. There is still the potential for inertia.

Not quite. A 4T is imminent. A combination a meltdown in real estate values that serve as a surrogate for wealth and either massive price rises or wild swings in commodity prices will create economic distress unlike any known since the Great Depression. Dubya and the GOP seem unduly tied to entities likely to be seen as villains in soon-to-come years.

Only so far can economic disparities go until they precipitate strikes, riots, and even revolution. Our system offers consumerism as an opiate... and we're not going to accept promises of pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die as a reward for harsher conditions.

The first level is the people. To many, 'liberal' is still a dirty word. They have vague impressions of the worst aspects of the awakening, and block out the positive aspects of what was achieve by the GI generation. They remember riots, tax and spend, and professional welfare mothers rather than the energy and big successes... containing communism, Apollo, and the post war infrastructure rebuilding. Even the social changes pushed in the 60s have many positive merits, from civil rights to women's rights to environmental awareness. Many refuse to see it. Many do not want to see big government attempting big things again. The problems of the cascade can still be denied. Many can still refuse to see. They just have to see 'liberals' through the deeply distorted lenses of stereotype to avoid living in the real world.

With enough distress, even Americans will find the word "socialism" attractive.

In short, the election is not a gimme. McCain is still in it.

Of course; it's six months away. Ordinarily one expects the Party in power to pump the economy... but this time the Bush administration seems so inept that it could throw the election. A strange combination of high unemployment and high prices will create an ugly Misery Index.

There are not enough powerful industry leaders pushing to profit from a transformed economy. I'd argue that the Revolution was started in Boston by shipping interests who wanted profits going to Boston rather than London, and thus disliked the colonial imperialism thing. As the Civil War approached, there were many who wanted the federal government to do more to help develop industry, and to open up the west. Prior crises have often featured progressive industries wanting to transform the culture for their own profit motive. I'm not sensing a lot of this today.

We are getting a transformed economy -- but one that favors certain industries that few consider innovative. It's a transformation best described as a wrecking. Airlines and the auto industry are getting whacked. You can just imagine what happens to the RV industry. Non-food retailing and the restaurant business are getting hurt as people find ways to cut back.

High technology? We largely import the electronics. Software dedicated to use by the military, Big Pharma, and the Oil Cartel might do well.

And there is the diversity of issues... war, energy, economic, cultural, ecological... Without central defining issues, it is hard to get into focus. There is much to be done, and much it needs doing, but there is no defining sound byte to rally behind.

The language of political discourse remains polarizing -- energy versus ecology, war as the only stimulus that the Bush administration recognizes... that's an attempt to stay 3T.

Anyway, I don't see it as a done deal. I don't know that we will see a progressive president with a solid mandate. I don't know that Congress is apt to be shaken out of its inertia. I do agree that the cascade seems to be cascading. If the economy continues down hill and Iraq remains Iraq, the ice might indeed break.

The candidate who can most successfully repudiate the rot associated with the Bush administration will get the vote. What good has Dubya achieved? What legacy does he have?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The candidate who can most successfully repudiate the rot associated with the Bush administration will get the vote. What good has Dubya achieved? What legacy does he have?

I see it. You see it. Everyone ought to be able to see it. I'm just not sure it is going to happen. I'm not sure a solid majority will be seeing it strongly enough that those inside the beltway will realize there is a true change or be broken tidal shift coming in. Not in 2009, at least.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I see it. You see it. Everyone ought to be able to see it. I'm just not sure it is going to happen. I'm not sure a solid majority will be seeing it strongly enough that those inside the beltway will realize there is a true change or be broken tidal shift coming in. Not in 2009, at least.

Has anyone seen any good reviews or speculations on the races for the House and Senate. As I grow increasingly dissillusioned with the presidential race, I am hoping more and more that we can have a landslide change in the Congress. I am not certain how effective we have been at getting liberals to run for office in the 50 states. There was alot of coverage of the state races in 2006 but, of course, not much now. Can anyone direct me to somewhere where they provide an overview of who is running and what are the highlights?

Originally Posted by jadams

Has anyone seen any good reviews or speculations on the races for the House and Senate. As I grow increasingly dissillusioned with the presidential race, I am hoping more and more that we can have a landslide change in the Congress. I am not certain how effective we have been at getting liberals to run for office in the 50 states. There was alot of coverage of the state races in 2006 but, of course, not much now. Can anyone direct me to somewhere where they provide an overview of who is running and what are the highlights?

The Northstar State has a Senate contest between Mr. Norm Coleman-RINO {former Democratic-Farmer-Laborite imported from the coast} and Mr. Al Franken-MN INO who hasn't paid his fees and taxes and unemployment costs in the Several States where he labored as a buffoon; this Seat was once held by a plaid clad merchant who sold plywood to the masses and then a demagogue who fell to earth. It will be an expensive contest between the flavors of Progressive folly.

The DFL has an attractive candidate in the wealthy and Progressive lake-shored suburbs in the Third now held by an alcoholic (in recovery) RINO; I think the rest will remain frozen unless there is a landslide for the GOP or Democrat Party nationally then the First and Sixth may come into play. HTH

Originally Posted by jadams

Has anyone seen any good reviews or speculations on the races for the House and Senate.

Swing State Project is probably the best source from a Dem-leaning perspective. As far as the highlights, I'm a bit biased but I'd say this candidate is the best of the bunch.

Originally Posted by Finch

Swing State Project is probably the best source from a Dem-leaning perspective. As far as the highlights, I'm a bit biased but I'd say this candidate is the best of the bunch.

The biddy's younger than me. Depressing.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

There are not enough powerful industry leaders pushing to profit from a transformed economy. I'd argue that the Revolution was started in Boston by shipping interests who wanted profits going to Boston rather than London, and thus disliked the colonial imperialism thing. As the Civil War approached, there were many who wanted the federal government to do more to help develop industry, and to open up the west. Prior crises have often featured progressive industries wanting to transform the culture for their own profit motive. I'm not sensing a lot of this today.

And there is the diversity of issues... war, energy, economic, cultural, ecological... Without central defining issues, it is hard to get into focus. There is much to be done, and much it needs doing, but there is no defining sound byte to rally behind.

Loved this post. Regarding other industries. The Gore election in 2000 was the first time I was aware of the computer/high tech industry seeming to back a candidate. I saw that election as 20th century industry (internal combustion engine and oil) vs. 21st century industry (computers and green tech). The oil men won big time, hence our adventure trying to maintain hegemony over the middle east. This is proving to be very expensive and not getting us anywere. Meanwhile we are either going to find an alternative form of individual transportation or we are going to have one heck of a migration in this country...people will have to move closer to work. And they will have to sell houses cheap and buy cheap to do it.

Meanwhile I see the old industries losing their foothold and the new industries still trying to displace them. It is bound to happen. When, cannot say.

Re:lack of focus. While I agree that the problems are everywhere and we are playing whack a mole, to me they all revolve around one major problem... energy. Just to keep economy going and for us to be able to supply the planet with the (clean)energy we need there is going to have to be some major discovery and a total rebuilding of our infrastructure. Which is a good thing because if we have to replace all our cars and our gas stations and our living arrangments there will be more than enough jobs here in the USA that they will not be able to ship anywhere.

There are many other problems that seem to revolve around money matters, debt, rapacious banking systems, and other thieves and liars. I think they will be swept up somewhat in change associated to the energy crisis. But these systems are more powerful than OIL so they will be very difficult to impact without Real Revolution.

I don't know about other people, but I have just signed up (at age almost 65) for another 5 year contract! I will never be able to retire. Luckily I work close to work so can manage the $4.00 gas for now... but what happens when it hits $10??? I also have been hit by some major insurance fees, both medical and hazard/flood that are huge and bizarre when I compare to the good old days of total health coverage and normal weather. I was looking forward to Medicare but I just talked to them and found out I will have to pay $1000 a year just to get co pay coverage and nevermind what I would have to pay if I would/could ever retire. (I am already covered at work, but am still paying off almost $2000 worth of co pays for tests that I was required to take just to prove that I was healthy enough to be "allowed" to have some simple surgery. I was. Amazing days.)

There is something out there in The Mist and and I can't be the only one that knows it!

Originally Posted by jadams

Loved this post. Regarding other industries. The Gore election in 2000 was the first time I was aware of the computer/high tech industry seeming to back a candidate.

Silicon Valley was a big-time source of support for Clinton/Gore in 1992/1996.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Silicon Valley was a big-time source of support for Clinton/Gore in 1992/1996.

You would NOT believe (or maybe you would!) the number of Obama signs around here in Silicon Valley now! I have literally seen scores on yards, on cars, on shirts, on buttons (but mostly yard signs). I have seen maybe three Hillary bumper stickers and one McCain.

The geeks are for Obama, big time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/30/italy

Italy's new parliament met for the first time yesterday with applause for Rome's mayor-elect, Gianni Alemanno, a day after followers celebrated his triumph with straight-arm salutes and fascist-era chants.Alemanno, a former neo-fascist youth leader, took 54% of the vote in a run-off on Sunday and Monday, crushing his rival, Francesco Rutelli, a deputy prime minister in the last, centre-left government.

Silvio Berlusconi, who won a general election earlier this month, welcomed the latest evidence of Italy's leap to the right by declaring: "We are the new Falange." Although he took care to wrap his remark in a classical context, his choice of words appeared to be a nod and a wink to his most extreme supporters.

Even that which the previous 4T fought for is no longer guaranteed. I never thought I would live to see a day which saw the "Duce!" chant and straight-arm salute in Rome itself again....

More fascist stuff in the link, only an excerpt was posted.


Truly sickening, and it sounds as if this 4T may lend itself to a return to some "isms" again, especially if the economic house of cards does collapse globally.

Originally Posted by MillieJim

Even that which the previous 4T fought for is no longer guaranteed. I never thought I would live to see a day which saw the "Duce!" chant and straight-arm salute in Rome itself again....

More fascist stuff in the link, only an excerpt was posted.

Truly sickening, and it sounds as if this 4T may lend itself to a return to some "isms" again, especially if the economic house of cards does collapse globally.

Maybe we'll get FDR back . . . if we're lucky.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Maybe we'll get FDR back . . . if we're lucky.

An interesting hypothetical. Remember, FDR enabled the military industrial complex, expanded government intervention in the economy, and promoted US intervention abroad. In many ways, the conservatives of any crisis defend the status quo created by the progressives in the prior crisis. The major difference is that the Grey Champion is generally allied with the people and change, while the conservatives going into the following crisis have perverted the prior champion's ideas to serve the monied interests in a status quo sort of way.

Would FDR, should he be restored to life today, cling to the big government solves big problems tax and spend liberalism he championed for a particular time when the need was very great for just that sort of government? Or would he be an astute enough politician to sit back and think things through? Would he recognize that LBJ took his safety nets too far? Would he think the response to Bin Laden might properly be different from the responses to Hitler and Stalin?

I greatly respect FDR, but his values would be four score and seven years out of date. Given how stubbornly today's conservatives cling to perverted variants of FDR's values, I'm not sure what I would expect of a missionary looking at today's problems. Yes, he was a great man, but he was a great man of his times.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

An interesting hypothetical. Remember, FDR enabled the military industrial complex, expanded government intervention in the economy, and promoted US intervention abroad. In many ways, the conservatives of any crisis defend the status quo created by the progressives in the prior crisis. The major difference is that the Grey Champion is generally allied with the people and change, while the conservatives going into the following crisis have perverted the prior champion's ideas to serve the monied interests in a status quo sort of way.

The factual universe is of course very different from what FDR knew or created. Much of what FDR created, one must regret, has been turned into a monstrosity. The military-industrial complex was a novelty in his day, having been built in part from scratch and in part being improvised from civilian industry. (In essence, automobile and appliance manufacturers made such heavy weapons as tanks and military aircraft instead of automobiles, refrigerators, and washing machines). Much of the military-industrial complex that emerged in FDR's time out of wartime necessity returned to civilian life. The part that couldn't return to civilian manufacturing became a political constituency and a political power in its own right. That part needed war of some kind with which to prosper. It was able to use Dubya for its own purposes -- and we Americans now pay in ways that we could never imagine.

Government intervention in the economy was benign when it began from nearly-nothing. At least until Dubya it has done more good than harm by establishing a transportation network, promoting education (GI Bill) and old-age security (Social Security), keeping people from going hungry, and in general preventing any reprise of the Great Depression. Business subsidies are always suspect, and those have increased under Dubya.

We can all see how bad government can get when it promotes importation instead of manufacturing (so that Big Business can cut labor costs purely for profit instead of efficiency), when it promotes private-public partnerships (if anything ever was an enticement to corruption, those are), chooses winners and losers by class and region, and of course serves warmongers. We go into this 4T with bloated, pathological government instead of inadequate government but the means with which to make it work to save the country and improve the world.

The new, fast-growing government under FDR got us through the last 4T; the bloated Big Government that better serves special interests than the American people as a whole is a gigantic burden. Much of the problem arises in our President, not so much a repudiator of the methods of FDR as a repudiator of his objectives. He is a perverter more than a negator. As a perverter of FDR's methods he is far more dangerous than was someone like Ronald Reagan, who sought to dismantle Big Government.

When the Axis threw World War II at us, we did not have entrenched interests seeking war as a means of creating quick, high profits. We now have those interests. We may not be quite comparable to any of the Axis Powers -- but we are beginning to look much like Germany under Wilhelm II, with a formal leader full of bluster and a huge armaments industry that asserts itself as the instrument of national pride. That sort of pride "goeth before the Fall".

Would FDR, should he be restored to life today, cling to the big government solves big problems tax and spend liberalism he championed for a particular time when the need was very great for just that sort of government? Or would he be an astute enough politician to sit back and think things through? Would he recognize that LBJ took his safety nets too far? Would he think the response to Bin Laden might properly be different from the responses to Hitler and Stalin?

In view of FDR's flexibility and insight, he would surely have handled America's current dangers far differently from Dubya. FDR was not an ideologue; Dubya is. FDR sought good results threw shrewd stewardship; Dubya seeks to enrich and empower his cronies.

I greatly respect FDR, but his values would be four score and seven years out of date. Given how stubbornly today's conservatives cling to perverted variants of FDR's values, I'm not sure what I would expect of a missionary looking at today's problems. Yes, he was a great man, but he was a great man of his times.

The Crisis of 2020 will be no more like the Great Depression and World War II than the Great Depression and World War II was like the American Civil War. We can expect Lincoln-like and FDR-like rhetoric; we can expect that any war is likely to be waged until an unambiguous resolution. We can also expect severe hardships that pose new threats to the body politic.

We can also look on the other side -- would Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton have had a chance to become President in 1932? I think not.

Originally Posted by MillieJim

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/30/italy





Even that which the previous 4T fought for is no longer guaranteed. I never thought I would live to see a day which saw the "Duce!" chant and straight-arm salute in Rome itself again....

More fascist stuff in the link, only an excerpt was posted.


Truly sickening, and it sounds as if this 4T may lend itself to a return to some "isms" again, especially if the economic house of cards does collapse globally.

Holy F-ing Christ. That article sent shivers down my spine. I hope to God this isn't the start of a trend...

Originally Posted by MillieJim

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/30/italy





Even that which the previous 4T fought for is no longer guaranteed. I never thought I would live to see a day which saw the "Duce!" chant and straight-arm salute in Rome itself again....

More fascist stuff in the link, only an excerpt was posted.


Truly sickening, and it sounds as if this 4T may lend itself to a return to some "isms" again, especially if the economic house of cards does collapse globally.

At the end of WWII, both Germany and Japan were thououghly punished for their deeds. Italy, who after all went fascist first and was so the longest got off lightly by compairison.
So far Germany and Japan have remained respectable and dispite internal pressures look likely to stay so.

If Italy ends up on the bad side during this 4T well....

S&H stated that in a Crisis, America will be a much more tranquil and civil society.

America's 'safety catch'
By Justin Webb
BBC North America editor, Missouri Despite the fact there are more than 200 million guns in circulation, there is a certain tranquility and civility about American life.

Deepwater, Missouri has a motto: "A great lil' town nestled in the heartland."



Deepwater considers itself to be an exemplar of the best of American life. A place where outsiders - if they ever penetrated this far - would find home-cooked apple pie and friendly, warm, hard-working folk.

Among those folk, I have no doubt, is Ronald Long.

Last month Mr Long decided to install a satellite television system in his Deepwater home. His efforts to make a hole in the outside wall came to nothing because Mr Long did not possess a drill.

But he did have a .22 calibre gun.

He fired two shots from the inside of the bedroom.

The second killed his wife who was standing outside.

He will face no charges. The police accept it was an accident.

Gun control

To many foreigners - and to some Americans - the tolerance of guns in everyday American life is simply inexplicable.



In Montana, we like our guns... most of us own two or three
Brian Schweitzer, Governor of Montana

As a New York Times columnist put it recently:

"The nation is saturated with violence. Thousands upon thousands of murders are committed each year. There are more than 200 million guns in circulation."

Someone suggested a few days ago that the Democrats' presidential candidates might like to take up the issue of gun control.
Forget about it.

They were warned off - in colourful style - by a fellow Democrat, the Governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer.

"In Montana, we like our guns", he said.

"Most of us own two or three guns. 'Gun control' is hitting what you shoot at. So I'd be a little careful about blowing smoke up our skirts."

Democrats would like to win in the Mountain West this November. Enough said.

Washington weapons ban

On the anniversary of the Virginia Tech shooting, all this will feel to some like a rather depressing, if predictable, American story. A story of an inability to get to grips with violence.



At the moment, there is an effort being made to overturn a ban on some types of weapon in Washington DC.

Among those dead against this plan - those who claim it would turn the nation's capital into the Wild West - is a lanky black man (he looks like a basketball player) called Anwan Glover.

Anwan peeled off articles of clothing for our cameras and revealed that he had been shot nine times.

One bullet is still lodged in an elbow.

His younger brother was shot and killed a few months ago.

Anwan was speaking to us in a back alley in north-east Washington. If you heard a gun shot in this neighbourhood you would not feel surprised.

'Gentler environment'

Why is it then that so many Americans - and foreigners who come here - feel that the place is so, well, safe?



I have met incredulous British tourists who have been shocked to the core by the peacefulness of the place


A British man I met in Colorado recently told me he used to live in Kent but he moved to the American state of New Jersey and will not go home because it is, as he put it, "a gentler environment for bringing the kids up."
This is New Jersey. Home of the Sopranos.

Brits arriving in New York, hoping to avoid being slaughtered on day one of their shopping mission to Manhattan are, by day two, beginning to wonder what all the fuss was about. By day three they have had had the scales lifted from their eyes.

I have met incredulous British tourists who have been shocked to the core by the peacefulness of the place, the lack of the violent undercurrent so ubiquitous in British cities, even British market towns.

"It seems so nice here," they quaver.
Well, it is!

Violent paradox

Ten or 20 years ago, it was a different story, but things have changed.
And this is Manhattan.

Wait till you get to London Texas, or Glasgow Montana, or Oxford Mississippi or Virgin Utah, for that matter, where every household is required by local ordinance to possess a gun.

Folks will have guns in all of these places and if you break into their homes they will probably kill you.

They will occasionally kill each other in anger or by mistake, but you never feel as unsafe as you can feel in south London.

It is a paradox. Along with the guns there is a tranquillity and civility about American life of which most British people can only dream.

Peace and serenity

What surprises the British tourists is that, in areas of the US that look and feel like suburban Britain, there is simply less crime and much less violent crime.

Doors are left unlocked, public telephones unbroken.

One reason - perhaps the overriding reason - is that there is no public drunkenness in polite America, simply none.

I have never seen a group of drunk young people in the entire six years I have lived here. I travel a lot and not always to the better parts of town.
It is an odd fact that a nation we associate - quite properly - with violence is also so serene, so unscarred by petty crime, so innocent of brawling.
Virginia Tech had the headlines in the last few days and reminded us of the violence for which the US is well known.

But most American lives were as peaceful on this anniversary as they are every day.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

At the end of WWII, both Germany and Japan were thououghly punished for their deeds. Italy, who after all went fascist first and was so the longest got off lightly by compairison.

The Italians had lots of mitigating circumstances as a people. They committed far fewer war crimes than did the Japanese and Germans, they largely treated the Allies as liberators, and they had an effective partisan movement. Mussolini would have likely ended up at the end of a rope had Partisans not "ventilated" him.

So far Germany and Japan have remained respectable and dispite internal pressures look likely to stay so.

If Italy ends up on the bad side during this 4T well....

I'm more concerned about the fascistic trends in the good ol' U.S. of A under "Busciolini"....

• * 1. Pervasive nationalism
  
  * 2. Violations of human rights
  
  * 3. Scapegoating
  
  * 4. Blatant militarism
  
  * 5. Rampant sexism
  
  * 6. Controlled, corrupt, or cowed news media
  
  * 7. Labor powerless
  
  * 8. Corporate power protected and promoted
  
  * 9. Dominant religions co-opted
  
  * 10. Exaggerated concern for national security
  
  * 11. Anti-intellectualism
  
  * 12. Obsession with crime and punishment
  
  * 13. Corruption and cronyism
  
  * 14. Suspect elections
  

To be sure, some of these pathologies are to be found in all societies at all times to some extent, but America has had far more of these, and harder, under you-know-which-President than at any other time in its history.

Straight-arm salutes performed with mindless slogans or in reverential silence are ugly. Fascists are to be found in all countries; we'd better stop our own fascists because if we don't, then we Americans risk becoming the Evil Empire and destroying much that is precious here.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The Italians had lots of mitigating circumstances as a people. They committed far fewer war crimes than did the Japanese and Germans, they largely treated the Allies as liberators, and they had an effective partisan movement. Mussolini would have likely ended up at the end of a rope had Partisans not "ventilated" him.

Italy also struggled longer after the war. Germany's and Japan's people transferred their formidable loyalties to their new governments. Italy... was fractured and violent for another decade or two.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/op...ml?ref=opinion
seems to be one of the strongest pieces of evidence I've seen to suggest that the 3T refuses to die.

Originally Posted by Seminomad

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/op...ml?ref=opinion
seems to be one of the strongest pieces of evidence I've seen to suggest that the 3T refuses to die.

I think it's more of a matter of we have a 3T media and government (at least factions of the government), and a 4T public. Bob Herbert is correct to note that the media has been out of touch and postseasonal by obsessing about Wright.

Poll after poll, anecdote after anecdote indicates the public's mood has been darker since Katrina, even Summer of '05. They are looking for solutions, not the gossip of the day.

IMO, the reality check is coming this November, one way or another. The party most ready to act like it really is a 4T will be the one to sweep into power. After that, there's no looking back; things are going to change one way or the other.

Right now, it's probably the Democrats, because the Republicans have all but collapsed. Their 3T dominance perhaps was a strategic blunder long term, because they are now associated with all of the excesses and all the bad things to come out of the recently-ended 3T (or at least things that are perceived as bad by a 4T public; they may not be perceived as bad by a 3T public). While I doubt that will change, there is always a chance I suppose. Now that the public is in a mood to accomplish a lot of change in a short period of time, they are on the outside looking in, instead of being in a position to finally crystallize their agenda into the fabric of national politics in the 4T.

The 3T media will die when it is forced to die, but until then, it'll do it's best to keep the party going. I suspect measures to end media consolidation would go a long way to help the tone of our newscasts.

Originally Posted by MillieJim

I think it's more of a matter of we have a 3T media and government (at least factions of the government), and a 4T public. Bob Herbert is correct to note that the media has been out of touch and postseasonal by obsessing about Wright.

Precisely! the "Blame Whitey" argument of Jeremiah Wright is even 2T -- characteristic of minorities having learned that white people are rarely friends. I wish that Jeremiah Wright would have come to recognize that under the corrupt and unresponsive government that we now have, white people are getting burned, too. If poor blacks are to have any suitable allies, it is poor whites, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans -- as Dr. Martin Luther King came to recognize.

In this 4T, race matters far less than does shared economic distress. Unemployment and malnutrition do not individually hurt white people and black people less severely when they strike. The last 2T at least forced the commercial, intellectual, and religious Establishments to recognize what had been the huge distance between claims of equality in America. We have learned something from that time, and we are far ahead on race relations from where we were eighty years ago.

Blame Whitey? No. Most white people have had no culpability in economic and political decisions made on behalf or the plutocratic elite. If anything, they too are victims.

Poll after poll, anecdote after anecdote indicates the public's mood has been darker since Katrina, even Summer of '05. They are looking for solutions, not the gossip of the day.

No doubt. We recognize increasingly that a system that can give us so pathological a leader as George Worthless Bush is itself a problem. Yes, the 2000 Presidential election was suspect -- but that was seven and a half dreary years ago.

Of course we look at the midterm election of 2006 and we recognize that several corrupt and extreme politicians associated heavily with 3T politics went down. The system works; different results would have suggested that even electoral politics were beyond repair.

IMO, the reality check is coming this November, one way or another. The party most ready to act like it really is a 4T will be the one to sweep into power. After that, there's no looking back; things are going to change one way or the other.

Right now, it's probably the Democrats, because the Republicans have all but collapsed. Their 3T dominance perhaps was a strategic blunder long term, because they are now associated with all of the excesses and all the bad things to come out of the recently-ended 3T (or at least things that are perceived as bad by a 4T public; they may not be perceived as bad by a 3T public). While I doubt that will change, there is always a chance I suppose. Now that the public is in a mood to accomplish a lot of change in a short period of time, they are on the outside looking in, instead of being in a position to finally crystallize their agenda into the fabric of national politics in the 4T.

The 2006 elections demonstrate evidence of the collapse of the GOP: no Democratic Representative went down, and the Democrats won the Senate back by defeating six incumbent Republicans. That's the equivalent of winning an inside straight. Ordinarily it is difficult to defeat incumbents because of the power of incumbency.

We still have gridlock. Horrible as that seems at the start of a 4T, it's still better than what we had going into November 2006: lockstep politics involving corrupt politicians acting in concert but playing badly out of tune and playing the wrong music. Dubya still has veto power and uses it or the threat of it often.

The 3T media will die when it is forced to die, but until then, it'll do it's best to keep the party going. I suspect measures to end media consolidation would go a long way to help the tone of our newscasts.

The 3T media used to be 2T. 2T media failed to recognize the change from 2T to 3T. They seemed convinced in the late summer and early autumn that Jimmy Carter would still beat Ronald Reagan. The 2T media used to be 1T; they were surprised at the counterculture of the 1960s. Don't give undue credit to technology, including the Internet, for changing media. Journalists are people, and they remain vulnerable to linear thought. They expect more of the same as a norm and fail to recognize when "more of the same" is no longer possible.

The media have ordinarily re-invented themselves when the times change unambiguously. First the times change -- then the Times changes.

Originally Posted by MillieJim

The 3T media will die when it is forced to die, but until then, it'll do it's best to keep the party going.

When it hits them in the pocketbooks.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The 2006 elections demonstrate evidence of the collapse of the GOP: no Democratic Representative went down, and the Democrats won the Senate back by defeating six incumbent Republicans. That's the equivalent of winning an inside straight. Ordinarily it is difficult to defeat incumbents because of the power of incumbency.

We still have gridlock. Horrible as that seems at the start of a 4T, it's still better than what we had going into November 2006: lockstep politics involving corrupt politicians acting in concert but playing badly out of tune and playing the wrong music. Dubya still has veto power and uses it or the threat of it often.

One historical fact to remember is that the 1930 Midterm elections were similar and gave us gridlock, but in fact now the 1930 election is seen as the opening trumpet call for the New Deal. The 1930 election is the correct historical analogy, if one is to be made, for 2006. I have dug up an article on the election and pasted some excerpts below.

You tell me whether we're talking about 1930 or 2006 based on the quotes. The 1930-1932 state of Congressional politics is straight out of the 2006 Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid playbook. Or perhaps, their playbook is right out of the 1930's.

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/ope...h/06/1930.html

Democrats, so long out of power, sensed an opportunity to make big gains—and indeed they did. In the 1930 midterm elections, House Democrats added 49 to their number, Senate Democrats eight. Furthermore, Congress did not convene until a year later—in December 1931—and the results of thirteen House vacancy elections tipped control of the House to Democrats. All in all, one of every five House members was a freshman. In the Senate, Republicans kept a one-seat plurality, but Democrats and the one independent could block action, and there were enough progressive Republican Senators to form a working majority with Democrats on many issues.

Democrats ultimately used their new power in Congress to undermine Hoover and lay the groundwork for some of the policy departures of the New Deal. Their initial strategy was less confrontational, and aimed at letting Hoover propose policy and take responsibility for national conditions. However, House Democrats rebelled against this leadership strategy in March 1932, voting to restore spending cuts proposed by Hoover and rejecting his proposed national sales tax in favor of higher taxes on wealth.

Not only did Hoover stand on the opposite side of these issues from the Democratic Congress, but most Republicans stood by the President. Seventy-five percent of House Republicans supported the national sales tax, while 75 percent of House Democrats opposed it; almost no House Republicans voted for the Democratic relief bill. Thus the 72nd Congress elected in 1930 had the effect of substantially clarifying in the public mind the partisan division over social welfare and wealth distribution. Indeed, academic studies have shown that the "social welfare" dimension of issue voting in Congress—what would ultimately be the very basis of the New Deal—either first emerged or was greatly strengthened in the 72nd Congress.

Whether the Republicans fall into the same trap they fell into in the late 20's and early 30's remains to be seen. McCain is their last, best hope, I think. He's about as handicapped as they come, with the most hated President in the history of the Republic hanging from his neck.

Originally Posted by MillieJim

One historical fact to remember is that the 1930 Midterm elections were similar and gave us gridlock, but in fact now the 1930 election is seen as the opening trumpet call for the New Deal. The 1930 election is the correct historical analogy, if one is to be made, for 2006. I have dug up an article on the election and pasted some excerpts below.

You tell me whether we're talking about 1930 or 2006 based on the quotes. The 1930-1932 state of Congressional politics is straight out of the 2006 Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid playbook. Or perhaps, their playbook is right out of the 1930's.

Whether the Republicans fall into the same trap they fell into in the late 20's and early 30's remains to be seen. McCain is their last, best hope, I think. He's about as handicapped as they come, with the most hated President in the history of the Republic hanging from his neck.

But the economic distress hadn't struck America in 2006 -- yet. Herbert Hoover still had an unqualified reputation for honesty and integrity. Dubya's coalition went down in part due to pervasive corruption and his connection to a manipulator (Karl Rove) who exercised powers not defined in the Constitution. Besides, Hoover's America was at peace.

Reasons were different, but effects were much the same. All in all I see John McCain as a very weakened President should he win. He needs an overwhelming force of personality to overpower what is almost certain to be a large plurality of Democrats in the House and Senate. He lacks that.