Originally Posted by Mikebert

I agree that WW II was transformative. That's why it's part of the 4T, as opposed to most of the Napoleonic Wars and the War of the Spanish Succession. However I don't think WW II was a victory for FDR values over the pre-1929 values. I think this victory came in 1932 when the Democrats crushed the Republicans. So weak was the post-1932 GOP that they ran a Democrat for president in 1940. They went along with FDRs war plans with hardly a squeak because if they had given any resistance; they could be marginalized.

I see a values shift around 1940, as Morrow was broadcasting the London Blitz live, and Churchill was making his famous speeches. I think this shift was as important as the economic shift that got FDR elected. While it is easy to take it for granted with hindsight, for the 'containment' values to have stuck, victory in World War II had to follow. As late as Iwo Jima and the Battle of the Bulge, the issue was not truly settled in the hearts of America. Still, agreed, there was no election or two party divide over the shift in military values. The People followed FDR, and the Republicans bought in. The importance of the values shift is no less.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

My understanding of a GC is that they play visionary (prophetic) during the 4T. There is not just one, but many. They do not necessarily succeed or fail...

I believe you are using the 'GC' descriptor unusually. Most at the site will identify a single leader per civilization per crisis. I think I understand what you are saying, and can more or less agree with your reading of history, but you are abusing the technobabble a bit.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Since the saeculum is the invention of S&H and they call the War of the Roses a 4T, I would say that makes it a 4T by definition.

By Agricultural Age religious values, yes. If S&H are semi divine, and their writings considered inspired text, no argument. Let the secret police threaten to torture any who disagree with the official interpretation of holy writ. By Industrial Age values, they have proposed a theory, and the theory is either a good one or a bad one in depending on how well it fits the facts.

S&H have good reasons to keep their theory simple. I look at the long period between crises during that era and am dubious about keeping a strict four generation structure. Too much time. Too many generations. My own feeling is that some crises (not the War of the Roses) are driven in part by the speed of technological change. When changing technology results in changing economics, but traditional political and religious values obstruct necessary adjustments, you get a crisis. I have no problem saying the rate of technological advance is a factor in triggering crises, rather than putting total commitment to the generation mechanism. I would rather discuss which factor was stronger in which eras than simply accept an argument of divine inspiration. If the the English Civil War waddles, swims and quacks like a duck, I would change the theory to fit the data rather than ignore the data to keep the theory simple.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Of course, if his party loses power for the duration he will certainly have failed. But if we have president Mitt next year and the GOP is able to pull off something they can call victory in iraq, then Bush isn't going to be a failed GC.

Here I may be guilty of taking one of my own intuitive generalizations for granted. If a 3T / 4T conservative leader seeks a military solution to a problem set, and explicitly excludes the possibility of addressing underlying issues that are clearly vital to the onrushing crisis, I just sort of assume said leader is going to fail. Such a leader is far more likely to end up in the Hoover - Buchanan trash can, rather than on a Lincoln - FDR pedestal.

When you speak informally and intuitively, you tend to agree that Bush 43's policies won't hold. At other points you seem to want me to write my generalizations into firm black and white testable hypotheses which can be disproved with a single counter example. Sorry, I won't be able to satisfy your quest for a deterministic theory of psychohistory as clean as crisp as in Asimov's Foundation series. I am not Hari Seldon. I will just remain highly dubious about many things, including conservative leaders seeking military solutions while disregarding underlying issues.

Yes, there were successful 'conservative' leaders that successfully led through crises or better yet prevented full blown traumatic crises from developing. Queen Victoria and Bismarck are the classic examples. However, they did not attempt 'On to Richmond' military solutions while explicitly avoiding addressing underlying issues. Quite the contrary. They attacked the underlying issues while striving hard to avoid violent confrontation. There is a distinct difference between the Buchanan and Hoover school of conservative and the Queen Victoria and Bismarck school.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

They (ethnic cleansing, genocide, insurgent warfare and terrorism) are significant foreign policy problems. They are significant problems for the US as long as it embraces empire. Suppose the US decides empire isn't worth it? Are they problems then?

Two answers. These are global issues. They have to be solved. I am dubious about them being solved without a healthy degree of global cooperation. Ignoring problems during a 4T isn't really an option.

Second, the values coming out of the last crisis push the United States to contain threats and be the world's policemen. These values are dated. They were correct when fascism and communism were healthy and vibrant. I do not believe them correct in the long term. FDR's containment values will very likely be significantly blunted over the course of this crisis. Still, the instinct to try to fix things is key and core to current US values. Even if said values are somewhere between dated and stupid, we are apt to require total failure of the old values before policy is changed.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

And if the US decides on empire how can you be sure a military solution won't work? It did for Septimus Severus and Diocletian.

I'm looking at nuclear weapons, the difficulties in suppressing 2GW insurgency, and proxy war as the default way of dealing with meddling major powers attempting to establish zones of influence. I'm looking at the US experience in Vietnam, the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, and the US experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. If it takes roughly one soldier to occupy for every 50 people in the native population, an 'On to Richmond' military solution to a global problem is highly questionable. We can't put that many boots on the ground. Septimus Severus and Diocletian faced different scales, technologies, tactics, economics, religions and politics.

Yes, it is not clear to me that Obama or the hypothetical Clinton 44 are intending to significantly shift US policy from the path set by Bush 43. It is therefore equally not clear to me that Obama or Hillary will start solving crisis problems rather than mark time while they get worse. It is also not clear that if Obama or Hillary sew up the Democratic nomination during the early winter primaries while still ignoring the general publics desire to end the war, that a third party candidacy couldn't rise. Lots of time for it.

I am not at all ready to anoint the 2008 winner as automatic Grey Champion.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

There hasn't been another Depression in 70 years. They used to happen every 20 years or so. So yes, we (meaning economic policymakers) have learned to avoid them. What Hoover or Bush did was largely irrelevant.

We've just completed our 50th straight month of job growth. That's a record, and for the guy Democrats were calling the worst president since Hoover just a few years ago, it's a testament to his pro-growth, free-market policies. Policies of which you and every liberal policymaker in this country abhor and reject. If you wanna believe this splendid growth just happened because the cycle said so, fine. Heck you can even call it "voodoo economics" if ya want.

But most rational, clear-headed folks know full well who really believes in economic voodoo policy.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I have suggested that perhaps less military would be preferable. That is remove the means for wars of pre-emption and wars for resources. Doing so also removes the means for humanitarian interventions. My argument is if we become as unobtrusive as Brazil or Mexico, we would likely draw the numbers of terrorist attacks they do (zero).

Bob advocates for judicious use of military power--more peace keeping and less wars of pre-emption. He also suggests that this sort of approach will yield better results than Bush's approach. In fact he goes further to argue that Bush's approach is doomed to failure. I merely pointed out that the jury is not yet in on Bush's approach.

For example, if the goal of invading Iraq was to put US troops in that region permanently, (as I think it was) then it has so far been a qualified success. I rather doubt the troops in Iraq are ever going to be withdrawn. Of course, better situations can easily be imagined, e.g. a peaceful Iraq whose government lets us keep troops in Iraq (and US oil companies drill for oil), but the present situation will do.

Decent summary. It's good to see someone echo someone else's position without strawmanning it.

Part of the difficulty in judging the Bush 43 administrations policies is in figuring out what they are really trying to do. One almost has to present a different analysis of failure or success for each set of propaganda, as the propaganda changes from Friedman Unit to Friedman Unit. I'll throw out as self evident that we can't invade everyone that might possibly have WMDs, we alone can't invade everyone that engages in human rights violations, and we can't invade and nation build everyone whose government is dissimilar to our own.

But while Bush 43 will explicitly deny this is a war for oil, I'm inclined to believe that Mike is correct, that Rebuilding America's Defenses was an accurate telling of neocon policy, and that putting troops near the oil was an important part of the game plan.

I'm a little leery of accepting the current status quo as a 'success.' We are spending a lot of blood and treasure putting the troops near the oil. What are we getting back? Have we really successfully created a zone of influence by the old colonial imperialist standard? Can we sufficiently defend the oil infrastructure to begin full scale pumping? Is the Iraqi government in place truly a puppet regime, ready to honor 'requests' from the mother country? If we had allowed France and Russia to lift the old economic sanctions and rebuild Sadaam's oil infrastructure for him, would there be more oil on the market and thus lower oil prices? Would there not also have been fewer deaths and fewer human rights atrocities?

I just have problems seeing troops sitting on a designated objective as 'success.' The troops have to be achieving some worthy objective in being there. Right now, they are preventing a nightmare of their own creation from getting worse. I have a bit of trouble seeing this as 'success.' Perhaps Bush 43 can see it so, I don't know.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I hold the War of the Roses to be an Agricultural Age dynastic war. In a pure war cycle theory, it might be a crisis war, but I don't hold it to be a key conflict in the transition from the Agricultural Age pattern to the Industrial.

IMO the Late Renaissance wars of the late 1400s and their associated 4T were important in the formation of the modern centralized state. Henry V was very much a medieval leader. Henry VIII was very much an incipient early modern absolute monarch

Originally Posted by Mikebert

And with Obama embracing Republican talking points on Social Security both of the leading Democratic candidates are sounding like moderate Republicans.

in 1932 FDR was telling people that we was going to slash spending and similar things if elected president.

Originally Posted by Odin

IMO the Late Renaissance wars of the late 1400s and their associated 4T were important in the formation of the modern centralized state. Henry V was very much a medieval leader. Henry VIII was very much an incipient early modern absolute monarch

I won't argue with you there. The consolidation of power into the hands of the King was a significant step in the development of the modern state.

But I don't know that the War of the Roses was fought over that issue. Do you see either Lancaster or York as more centralized?

At any point prior to the development of the machine gun, one might argue that war was cost effective, at least to the winning side. It was certainly perceived of as cost effective. One might suggest that wars were fought whenever the nobility could afford it. I've seen it suggested that the economic K cycles were also a war cycle.

Thus I prefer to distinguish between a war that transforms society and a war for territory, for wealth, or for succession. I will acknowledge the existence of economic and war cycles which do not significantly transform society. Such wars do not feature an old guard clinging to a traditional structure of society contending against a progressive faction advocating new religion, new industry, or concepts such as rights or democracy.

But, yes, there was definitely an era when only kings could afford siege cannon, when the great lords suddenly found their castles obsolete, resulting in a profound political and military shift. Someone might look for conflicts where the Kings sent siege trains around to consolidate power. I know it happened, but can't say the process is associated with well known crisis wars.

Well, some of it did happen in the English Civil War. Cromwell's New Model Army was a national army which attempted to break a lot of leftover feudal traditions such as units raised and controlled by localities and lords.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Part of the difficulty in judging the Bush 43 administrations policies is in figuring out what they are really trying to do.

This is true. However some things were clear from the start. The war had nothing to do with WMDs or defending America against Iraqi-backed terrorists. I never thought that was the goal. Did you?

I thought the goal was to put a friendly regime into power that would allow the US to remove its Saudi presence and eliminate the Saddam problem and the associated embargo. I thought this was a good idea and so I supported the invasion. I didn't see a permanent US presence as a goal then, otherwise I would have opposed it because "Crusaders in the capital of Islam" would likely stir up the same terrorism that "Crusaders in the land of the two holy shrines" did.

On the other hand, Stratfor was of the opinion that the only rational reason for invading Iraq was to establish permanent bases in Iraq from which power could be projected. So they got it right.

I'll throw out as self evident that we can't invade everyone that might possibly have WMDs,

I don't think there was ever any interest in doing this. From the beginning, the administration adopted a belligerent attitude towards Iraq and Iran and a more tolerant one towards North korea and Pakistan. In other words the administration was mostly concerned with unfriendly countries who were also major oil producers.

But while Bush 43 will explicitly deny this is a war for oil, I'm inclined to believe that Mike is correct

You cannot believe anything this administration says without independent verification, they are like my daughter.

I'm a little leery of accepting the current status quo as a 'success.'

A qualified (partial) success.

Have we really successfully created a zone of influence by the old colonial imperialist standard?

No. However, by having US troops in Iraq we can see to it that no pipeline is constructed that can carry Saudi or Iraqi oil to China directly. All oil coming from these two countries (the two with the largest reserves) will move through US-controlled waters.

Can we sufficiently defend the oil infrastructure to begin full scale pumping?

No. That's why the success if only qualified. What they got was the bare bones: a disruption of oil supply to the US means a disruption of oil supply to everyone and no revenue for the oil-producing states, just like 1973. Oil producers (even Salafi ones) won't cut off supply to the world because the economic repercussions to them would likely make their regimes fall. They might be very willing to cut off supply to the US if they had an alternate outlet (overland shipments to China). US troops in the region forestall that.

Is the Iraqi government in place truly a puppet regime, ready to honor 'requests' from the mother country?

No, as I said success was limited, the adminstration got only one essential piece of what they wanted--NOT the whole enchilada.

If we had allowed France and Russia to lift the old economic sanctions and rebuild Sadaam's oil infrastructure for him, would there be more oil on the market and thus lower oil prices? Would there not also have been fewer deaths and fewer human rights atrocities?

Sure, but that doesn't stop a pipeline. That doesn't ensure the health of the US oil industry (who Cheney represents). If we did that, prudence would dictate that the US pursue conservation and develop alternate energy technologies. These strategies play directly into the hands of the enemy (Democrats and liberals) and must be suppressed at all costs.

I just have problems seeing troops sitting on a designated objective as 'success.'

Well sure, it does not look like success to me either. But we aren't Republican leaders.

I have a bit of trouble seeing this as 'success.' Perhaps Bush 43 can see it so, I don't know.

Well he is a Republican leader, so yes it is sufficiently successful for them to keep it going. Surely if Republican leaders did not perceive a benefit from continuing the war, they would have ended it. They would suffer no political repercussions. They let bin Laden go and nobody cared. Who objects to cutting and running? Republicans! Except when they are the ones cutting and running.

It's Republicans and conservatives who are in full 4T mode. They are (and have been) ready to rumble. They are willing to act aggressively in politics because they actually give a damn about the direction this country is going and are prepared to fight for it.

It's our side, Democrats and liberals, who with our bipartisan fetish, want to keep the 3T going. 3T's are all about delaying action. Democrats are all about not talking about what they believe (i.e. they propose no meaningful action) so nothing happens. In the spirit of bipartisanship, they propose compromise actions that are albatrosses that cannot possibility work and so are rightly not pursued.

Take health care. Anyone who has studied the issue knows that the obvious way to go is the implement something like the French system. More people get more care for less money.

Everyone also knows that we will never get something like the French system. The systems that have the best chance of being implemented are those that are doomed to failure, thus reinforcing the Republican meme national health insurance won't work for America.

The reason this is so is because Republican leaders know that national health insurance spells their doom. So they will fight it to death. Similarly if troops leave the Middle East, the Republican base in the oil and resource extraction industry is doomed. Hence the Republican leadership will fight hard to stop that from happening.

Democratic leaders want the 3T to continue. Either they lack the courage of their own convictions or they secretly share some of the Republican agenda.

Originally Posted by Odin

in 1932 FDR was telling people that we was going to slash spending and similar things if elected president.

Yes I know. That's why I don't worry about Clinton. I figure any Republican meme she spouts is just words; it won't translate into policy. If elected she will try to do to Republicans what Republicans did to her.

Obama is still pretty unseasoned. He has never faced a Republican in a contested election. He might actual believe in this New Politics stuff.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Originally Posted by Odin

in 1932 FDR was telling people that we was going to slash spending and similar things if elected president.

Yes I know. That's why I don't worry about Clinton. I figure any Republican meme she spouts is just words; it won't translate into policy. If elected she will try to do to Republicans what Republicans did to her.

Actually, that score-settling is my number one reason for opposing her. Republicans have proven that they can lead, but the places they take us are places I certainly don't want to go. If we're going to have a viable alternative, then we need serious policy from the Democrat, or the brand will merely be tarnished again. I don't see real leadership from Hillary; I see conflict - and I don't mean in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... Obama is still pretty unseasoned. He has never faced a Republican in a contested election. He might actual believe in this New Politics stuff.

On this we agree. It's the same problem I have with Edwards. The people with seasoning aren't gaining any interest. The one candidate that could make a true difference is Gore, and I really believe him when he says he's out. The GOP isn't showing me anything either.

IMNSHO, 2008 is shaping-up as pretty dismal.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Such wars do not feature an old guard clinging to a traditional structure of society contending against a progressive faction advocating new religion, new industry, or concepts such as rights or democracy.

The War of the Roses crisis was a stuggle for power amongst members of a depressed class (the medieval nobility). The old guard was the nonindustrialized (traditional) nobility. The winners were an empowered monarch and the industrialized nobility.

From the 11th century to early 14th century English population grew. Agricultural output, which initially was limited by population (labor), became limited by land availablity. Thus the position of those having land (nobility) improved while that of labor decreased. This situation continued until the real wage reached bare subsistence levels. Any further reductions would result in death by starvation (e.g. the Great Famine of 1314-16). So population reached a peak around 1315. Labor was in excess, about 20% of the population was unemployed (paupers).

Then came the Plague in 1348, which slashed population by about a third and then recurrences of the Plague so that by the beginning of the 15th century population had fallen below post-plague levels. The economic situation went from a situation of ~20% labor surplus to ~20% labor shortage. Real wages soared, reaching their highest levels before the middle of the 19th century. The situation for the nobility was reversed. Noble life became dog eat dog. England became a major producer of woolen cloth instead of just wool, to the detriment of Flanders (the former woolen cloth-making center). Those nobles with water resources built textile mills on their land and prospered (industrialized nobles). For those who did not (nonindustrial nobles) it was hard times.

Getting a "government job" (courtier) was important for nonindustrial nobles. Which faction was in power thus mattered more than before. With the increase of trade the financial position of the King (who had the power to tax trade) improved as well. More money meant the King could afford modern weapons of war like artilliary, which made the King a qualitatively different military actor than noble coalitions. This is a change from Medieval times.

Whose faction was in power (which house was the ruling house) became more important than it had ever been. The Wars of the Roses was a long civil war in which the two greatest factions struggled for supremacy because the Medieval noble way of life (that of the nonindustrialized noble) for their members was at stake.

The result of the war was the destruction of the old nobility and a lessening of factional struggles. The winner was the monarchy who increasingly could rule as an absolute dictator ignoring the rights of the nobility as spelled out in the Magna Carta.

So the War of the Roses can easily be seen as a crisis struggle.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I won't argue with you there. The consolidation of power into the hands of the King was a significant step in the development of the modern state.

But I don't know that the War of the Roses was fought over that issue. Do you see either Lancaster or York as more centralized?

At any point prior to the development of the machine gun, one might argue that war was cost effective, at least to the winning side. It was certainly perceived of as cost effective. One might suggest that wars were fought whenever the nobility could afford it. I've seen it suggested that the economic K cycles were also a war cycle.

Thus I prefer to distinguish between a war that transforms society and a war for territory, for wealth, or for succession. I will acknowledge the existence of economic and war cycles which do not significantly transform society. Such wars do not feature an old guard clinging to a traditional structure of society contending against a progressive faction advocating new religion, new industry, or concepts such as rights or democracy.

But, yes, there was definitely an era when only kings could afford siege cannon, when the great lords suddenly found their castles obsolete, resulting in a profound political and military shift. Someone might look for conflicts where the Kings sent siege trains around to consolidate power. I know it happened, but can't say the process is associated with well known crisis wars.

Well, some of it did happen in the English Civil War. Cromwell's New Model Army was a national army which attempted to break a lot of leftover feudal traditions such as units raised and controlled by localities and lords.

You want to look at Henry VII and how he did things. He was decidedly the transition figure between a medieval monarch and a Renaissance one - he took as much power into his own hands as he could, and did his best to get rid of any of the old medieval nobility who stood in his way. Henry VIII finished the job with a royal flourish.

So while neither York nor Lancaster as such stood for anything beyond the same old medieval dynastic struggle, the king who finally came out on top, did.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If we're going to have a viable alternative, then we need serious policy from the Democrat, or the brand will merely be tarnished again.

Republicans have an absolute requirment for (1) continued wars (2) no national health insurance (3) no action on global warming (4) no action on deficits (5) no action on alternate energy. They cannot afford to give up on any of these or they loose their brand and cease to be relevant. This is why they fight so hard for every advantage and refuse to budge on anything. Their continued relevance requires that they do so.

So if Republicans are to remain relevant, these five things must be taken off the table.

If you take all five of these things off the table, how can you have "serious Democratic policy"? You can't. You can have unserious policy and do (e.g. Democratic health plans and major candidate's positions in Iraq)

So the prerequisite to "serious policy" from Democrats is to first remove the Republicans from the table. In the last 4T, the Democrats first got rid of the Republicans by destroying them in 1932. THEN they implemented the New Deal.

Republicans can rule with a 50% + 1 strategy. Democrats need 60 seats.

Of the Democratic candidates who is most likely to fight to destroy the Republicans anyway s/he can? Who is most likley to go for the jugular because its personal?

I don't like what Clinton says. But I simply don't see Obama as the sort of knifefighter I think we need. Dodd is the guy I like the most because I believe he has balls, but then he isn't goiong to win so he has nothing to lose. Of the big three only Edwards is showing any spunk and that's because he's doomed too.

I'd be for Obama if he didn't embrace Republican memes on Social Security.

I'm thinking of voting for Huckabee in the primary if I can.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I'm thinking of voting for Huckabee in the primary if I can.

Why?

I have a soft spot for Huckabee, because he lost 100 pounds and seems honest. However, I wouldn't vote for him, because I disagree with most of his stands. But I'm curious about your reasoning.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Why?... because I disagree with most of his stands. But I'm curious about your reasoning.

He just told you why... he's AGAINST everything the "Republicans have an absolute requirment for," like:

1. Continued wars: Warfare is a matter self-defense, conservatives, however, aren't as girly and squeemish about the residual effects as liberals.
2. No national health insurance: No socialized "one-payer" system and no free lunch!
3. No action on global warming: No socialist remedy, to a problem mankind can't fix anyway!
4. No action on deficits: Have you seen the deficit falling like a rock, lately? Pro-growth economics works everytime!
5. No action on alternate energy: We should start drillin' in places where environmental wackos say no, and we should increase refining capacity and decrease refining regulations now!

Responsible, sensible and strong national-defense government is what Republicans are for. I dare say, Democrats are diametrically opposed to everything we are for.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I don't like what Clinton says. But I simply don't see Obama as the sort of knifefighter I think we need. Dodd is the guy I like the most because I believe he has balls, but then he isn't goiong to win so he has nothing to lose. Of the big three only Edwards is showing any spunk and that's because he's doomed too.

I'd be for Obama if he didn't embrace Republican memes on Social Security.

I'm thinking of voting for Huckabee in the primary if I can.

I'm still intending to vote for Dodd, but if I feel ornery enough by February 19 (and if there aren't any other interesting state or local races on the Democratic side), I might cross over and vote for Paul.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Republicans have an absolute requirement for (1) continued wars (2) no national health insurance (3) no action on global warming (4) no action on deficits (5) no action on alternate energy. They cannot afford to give up on any of these or they loose their brand and cease to be relevant. This is why they fight so hard for every advantage and refuse to budge on anything. Their continued relevance requires that they do so.

So if Republicans are to remain relevant, these five things must be taken off the table.

If you take all five of these things off the table, how can you have "serious Democratic policy"? You can't. You can have unserious policy and do (e.g. Democratic health plans and major candidate's positions in Iraq)

So the prerequisite to "serious policy" from Democrats is to first remove the Republicans from the table. In the last 4T, the Democrats first got rid of the Republicans by destroying them in 1932. THEN they implemented the New Deal.

Republicans can rule with a 50% + 1 strategy. Democrats need 60 seats.

Of the Democratic candidates who is most likely to fight to destroy the Republicans anyway s/he can? Who is most likely to go for the jugular because its personal?

I don't like what Clinton says. But I simply don't see Obama as the sort of knife-fighter I think we need. Dodd is the guy I like the most because I believe he has balls, but then he isn't going to win so he has nothing to lose. Of the big three only Edwards is showing any spunk and that's because he's doomed too.

I'd be for Obama if he didn't embrace Republican memes on Social Security.

I'm thinking of voting for Huckabee in the primary if I can.

H-m-m-m. I have to disagree with a lot of this. The GOP isn't as pressed on the issues you listed at the beginning as you indicate. They were pressed a few years ago, but their business-buddies reevaluated, and decided that, properly managed, they could make money by favoring most of them.

The GOP still benefits from war, so that one stands for now. National health insurance is an opportunity for big business to cost-shift the burden of worker health on the backs of tax payers, who also happen to be their workers. Demagoguing global warming and energy also puts tax dollars to work finding solutions, which they would like to see developed by private rather than public entities - mainly them. An deficits are finally starting to matter too, because the potential for contraction will hit the richest hardest.

I see Hillary being the GOP-lite candidate, giving business their assumed due, and spending most of her energy hunting GOP witches. While that's better than an outright handout, it probably won't differ all that much. So business will be happy if the candidates are Rudy and Hillary or Mitt and Hillary. Either of those match-ups has them winning, regardless. This time the Bible-thumpers are a distraction.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Why?

I have a soft spot for Huckabee, because he lost 100 pounds and seems honest. However, I wouldn't vote for him, because I disagree with most of his stands. But I'm curious about your reasoning.

I would rather see the Democrats face Huckabee than the other GOP frontrunners

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

National health insurance is an opportunity for big business to cost-shift the burden of worker health on the backs of tax payers, who also happen to be their workers.

Effective national health insurance means a significant role for government and so more taxes. And the rich paying more. The GOP is dead set against this.

Demagoguing global warming and energy also puts tax dollars to work finding solutions, which they would like to see developed by private rather than public entities - mainly them.

This is very small change. The GOP much more prefer tax dollars spent on defense R&D. Global warming and energy are loser issues for Republicans, which is why they are against them.

And deficits are finally starting to matter too, because the potential for contraction will hit the richest hardest.

No it won't. Deficits will be paid for by a rise in the price of imported goods. This effect will hurt everyone equally, while the benefit of tax cuts went to the rich. On the whole they will end up better--why do you suppose the rich support deficit-creating tax cuts?

I see Hillary being the GOP-lite candidate, giving business their assumed due, and spending most of her energy hunting GOP witches. While that's better than an outright handout, it probably won't differ all that much. So business will be happy if the candidates are Rudy and Hillary or Mitt and Hillary. Either of those match-ups has them winning, regardless.

If Democrats (now shorn of Southerners) win big next year, how does Clinton augment her power by consorting with the allies of her opponents? Corporate money isn't going to give her victory over Mitt or Rudy next year Polls show the GOP has a fair chance next year so most of the corporate money will backing the GOP. The GOP favors business in ways Democrats can never do--and business knows it.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Effective national health insurance means a significant role for government and so more taxes. And the rich paying more. The GOP is dead set against this.

Why does national health care need to be effective? Our current system is creaky, and those that have it think it's great. Mitt Romney already sold Democrats on a system that is paid-for by consumers. I assume that would be the GOP model, though less generous. After all, Mitt ha to sell this in Massachusetts

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... This is very small change. The GOP much more prefer tax dollars spent on defense R&D. Global warming and energy are loser issues for Republicans, which is why they are against them.

One need not preclude the other. Bush is already gushing about ethanol from good GOP farmers in the Midwest. I'm sure they can come up with a few other opportunities for vote-buying.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... Deficits will be paid for by a rise in the price of imported goods. This effect will hurt everyone equally, while the benefit of tax cuts went to the rich. On the whole they will end up better--why do you suppose the rich support deficit-creating tax cuts?

Once the squeeze is on, the working stiffs of America will be even less obstreperous than they are now. That sounds like a win for GOP management types to me. Add to that, the rising cost of high-end imported goods and trips to foreign lands will start to hurt a bit. That new Mercedes is already expensive without a major shift in the exchange rate.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... If Democrats (now shorn of Southerners) win big next year, how does Clinton augment her power by consorting with the allies of her opponents? Corporate money isn't going to give her victory over Mitt or Rudy next year Polls show the GOP has a fair chance next year so most of the corporate money will backing the GOP. The GOP favors business in ways Democrats can never do--and business knows it.

There was an article in the WSJ not long ago that quoted several fat-cat investors saying that the GOP has been a dismal failure recently, and they need the Dems to get things back on track. I doubt that means for more than one Presidential cycle, though.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I might cross over and vote for Paul.

Funny, like the sage of Da' Range, I'm thinkin' Paul would be the most likely GOP candidate to give Hillary Clinton a landslide victory, too.

But I don't like to toss my vote away like you folks do, even if I'm just tryin' to "game the system." Here's why: Not only do I believe my "vote" is a precious commodity, defended at the cost of much GI blood, I really do think such manipulative voting tends to produce the opposite effect intended.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Of the Democratic candidates who is most likely to fight to destroy the Republicans anyway s/he can? Who is most likely to go for the jugular because its personal?

There are people for whom this would be a selling point in her favor.

I'm thinking of voting for Huckabee in the primary if I can.

I feel that this is a bad idea if you want to monkey wrench the GOP. I think Huckabee is the one person would could unite the social conservatives (right now, they're divided) and garner enough votes from other Republicans to be a threat. If you want to make mischief, vote Paul. IMHO, he's a crank, but he gives the rest of the GOP field fits because of his anti-war stance.

As for me, I've decided on Dodd in the MI primary as it's currently constituted, or Edwards if it ends up being a caucus that the DNC will sanction.

If I might briefly bring the thread back to the subject of Iraq...

The Washington Post may be incrementing the debate to the next Friedman Unit. "Is the surge working" is now past. There seems to be an acceptance that there is a real drop in the violence. (Whether this is a result of higher troop levels, changed tactics, or the completion of the insurgent's ethnic cleansing operations is a question for another post.) The new question is whether the Iraqi Government can take advantage of the relative peace, and put together a power sharing agreement. The surge was supposed to buy time for the politicians. Are the politicians spending this time wisely? The violence level is dropping, but the benchmarks of political progress are not being met.

For discussion purposes...

CAMP LIBERTY, Iraq -- Senior military commanders here now portray the intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq, rather than al-Qaeda terrorists, Sunni insurgents or Iranian-backed militias.

In more than a dozen interviews, U.S. military officials expressed growing concern over the Iraqi government's failure to capitalize on sharp declines in attacks against U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians. A window of opportunity has opened for the government to reach out to its former foes, said Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of day-to-day U.S. military operations in Iraq, but "it's unclear how long that window is going to be open."

The lack of political progress calls into question the core rationale behind the troop buildup President Bush announced in January, which was premised on the notion that improved security would create space for Iraqis to arrive at new power-sharing arrangements. And what if there is no such breakthrough by next summer? "If that doesn't happen," Odierno said, "we're going to have to review our strategy."

There is quite a bit more... It is clear that troops are going to have to come home next summer. The Army can't sustain it. It is vaguely possible that Iraqi security can take over for US forces, but there is not a lot of optimism expressed about that. Thus, the Iraqi politicians may be down to their last Friedman Unit to agree on oil distribution, power sharing and similar basics.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Why does national health care need to be effective? Our current system is creaky, and those that have it think it's great. Mitt Romney already sold Democrats on a system that is paid-for by consumers. I assume that would be the GOP model, though less generous. After all, Mitt ha to sell this in Massachusetts

If it is ineffective, Democrats like Clinton will their lose power by losing elections. It is good politics for Democrats to support Mitt's doomed-to-failure policy. Blaming failures because the other guys let you do it doesn't really work. The Republican efforts to blame Iraq on the Democratic Congressmen who voted to support the prez hasn't worked. Polls still show than the public blames the Bush Administration for the war. Democrats won't get blamed for Republican fuckups so there is little reason to try to stop them. The public will punish you for trying, so you would be a fool to do so.

One need not preclude the other. Bush is already gushing about ethanol from good GOP farmers in the Midwest. I'm sure they can come up with a few other opportunities for vote-buying.

Ethanol has been around for a long time. It's proven not to affect the oil companies. Effective policy on energy would affect the oil companies and so is verboten to Republicans.

And once again, ineffective policy takes power away from Democrats. America is a conservative country. Americans like conservative/Republican administrations and are forgiving if they do a poor job. They will tolerate liberal/Democratic adminstrations only if they do a good job. So Democrats have to be effective if they want to hold power.

Effectiveness matters for Democrats. LBJ screws the pooch on Vietnam and doesn't even run for re-election. Dubya screws the pooch on getting Osama and not only runs, but wins.

There was an article in the WSJ not long ago that quoted several fat-cat investors saying that the GOP has been a dismal failure recently, and they need the Dems to get things back on track.

See my point? Even the WSJ gets it.

I doubt that means for more than one Presidential cycle, though.

Only if the Dems enact ineffective policy. If electoral results give Clinton the choice, why on Earth would she choose ineffective policy?

Originally Posted by The Pervert

I feel that this is a bad idea if you want to monkey wrench the GOP. I think Huckabee is the one person would could unite the social conservatives (right now, they're divided) and garner enough votes from other Republicans to be a threat.

As I see it, the GOP leadership doesn't want a religious conservative on the ticket this year. So I figure voting for one is the best way to throw the wrench. Huckabee has the best numbers of the religious right candidates.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Well he is a Republican leader, so yes it is sufficiently successful for them to keep it going. Surely if Republican leaders did not perceive a benefit from continuing the war, they would have ended it. They would suffer no political repercussions. They let bin Laden go and nobody cared. Who objects to cutting and running? Republicans! Except when they are the ones cutting and running.

It's Republicans and conservatives who are in full 4T mode. They are (and have been) ready to rumble. They are willing to act aggressively in politics because they actually give a damn about the direction this country is going and are prepared to fight for it.

It's our side, Democrats and liberals, who with our bipartisan fetish, want to keep the 3T going. 3T's are all about delaying action. Democrats are all about not talking about what they believe (i.e. they propose no meaningful action) so nothing happens. In the spirit of bipartisanship, they propose compromise actions that are albatrosses that cannot possibility work and so are rightly not pursued.

Take health care. Anyone who has studied the issue knows that the obvious way to go is the implement something like the French system. More people get more care for less money.

Everyone also knows that we will never get something like the French system. The systems that have the best chance of being implemented are those that are doomed to failure, thus reinforcing the Republican meme national health insurance won't work for America.

The reason this is so is because Republican leaders know that national health insurance spells their doom. So they will fight it to death. Similarly if troops leave the Middle East, the Republican base in the oil and resource extraction industry is doomed. Hence the Republican leadership will fight hard to stop that from happening.

Democratic leaders want the 3T to continue. Either they lack the courage of their own convictions or they secretly share some of the Republican agenda.

I don't much disagree with your perception of what is going on. I would prefer to describe it in a different way.

There is an existing way of doing business. Sticking to your Iraq and health care example issues, this way of doing business that involves troops near the oil, pumping oil, zones of influence, and the insurance industry drawing huge profits out of the health care industry. The Republicans hold onto political power by following policies which maintain the financial interests of those who implement 3T status quo policies. The Democrats talk a wonderful game in criticizing these policies, but take campaign finance contributions from the same industries. They are not really motivated to actually push for changes in policy. The Democrats seem to think they can acquire power by talking about real problems, but then they will not be required to actually solve said problems.

My perception is that both parties are still 3T. Both parties, in 'staying the course' and in preserving the health insurance industry's drain on the health care system, are preserving the status quo, are protecting the profits and power of those involved in the 3T way of doing things. 4T policies would address and solve basic problems, throwing the establishment out of power, and transforming basic elements of society in the process. Those who would stay the course in Iraq and leave the health care system unchanged are in the Buchanan / Hoover mode. Those who would seriously address energy, military and health care problems -- no matter who looses profits, and no matter how much change it takes to solve the problem -- would be in 4T Lincoln / FDR mode.

It is not just how hard one is fighting that is important, it is what one is fighting for.

And I'm inclined to agree that Hilary, Obama and much of the Democratic party are still on the 3T side of that fence. Yes, the Republicans are fighting more intensely as they can see the handwriting on the wall. No, we will not be in 4T mode until someone is seeking true solutions.

I believe there are a great number of issues to be resolved on many levels, economic, military, ecological, religious, political and other. I don't think we can focus on a single area, that the transformation will involve broad changes across the board. One can't focus on one aspect of the society without considering other areas.

But I'm beginning to believe we need success in one area first. Somebody has got to pick up on one specific problem, solve it, and then build on that success by solving other problems. While the cultural change has to be comprehensive, trying to change everything at once when one has no momentum feels implausible. Some small steps to restore the 'can do' attitude that Americans are competent and can get things done might be required before folks are ready to roll the big ball.

But starting this progress will not be easy. The current generation of politicians are trained to a 3T perspective and 3T way of doing business. There has been decades when any beneficial change has been labeled 'liberal,' and dragged through the mud. Stepping out of line and attempting to fight the system has drawn fire during the 3T. Politicians have been trained to an environment when doing what is right has been severely punished.

I see a huge potential for the right individual, someone courageous enough to risk his career attempting to do the right thing. A large fraction of the People are sick of it. Someone who could earn a reputation for dragon slaying would find lots of work to do. The problem might be getting that first dragon.