We are in the midst of the campaign for the most wide-open presidential election in modern history. While Hillary Clinton is clearly favored for the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama is raising the most money of any presidential candidate in American history, and the entire Democratic primary is looking more and more likely to hinge on what happens in Iowa, where all three contenders (yes, that includes the comparatively underfunded Edwards) are in a dead heat. On the Republican side, chaos. Every GOP candidate seems to have a fatal flaw - from Giuliani's personal life to Romney's flip-flopping to Fred Thompson's rather uninformed and blase approach to this crucial presidential race.

No one knows what will happen, though everybody wants to play pundit. And chances are when this thing is over, turnout will top 60% (as in 2004), the first two elections in a row with >60% turnout since the 1960s. At the end of it all, we may have the first woman in the White House (Clinton), the first African-American (Obama), the first Mormon (Romney), or the first Italian-American (Giuliani). The stakes are high and the dynamics confusing.

There are signs that this is the modern 1932 -- a major partisan and sectional realignment signaling a new political order -- or more ominously, the modern 1928. Signs of the latter already appear. Odds at the nomination (and indeed, the presidency) look better and better for an established New York Democrat (Al Smith/Hillary Clinton) who is breaking new ground (Catholic/woman) but comes from a bygone political era (Progressive New York in the late '10s/the Clinton '90s). Unlike Smith, Clinton polls better than her Republican opponents, but the opposition to her is equally vitriolic and impassioned, with a strong contingent of the party which is skeptical of her chances and of her political style.

Like 1928, a rather destructive presidency is ending, but few are offering grand solutions. Touchup politics is still the norm. This incredibly challenging environment is fodder for an unfortunate Hooverlike figure to win the White House, not a right-place, right-time Roosevelt.

Thoughts?

Originally Posted by 1990

We are in the midst of the campaign for the most wide-open presidential election in modern history. While Hillary Clinton is clearly favored for the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama is raising the most money of any presidential candidate in American history, and the entire Democratic primary is looking more and more likely to hinge on what happens in Iowa, where all three contenders (yes, that includes the comparatively underfunded Edwards) are in a dead heat. On the Republican side, chaos. Every GOP candidate seems to have a fatal flaw - from Giuliani's personal life to Romney's flip-flopping to Fred Thompson's rather uninformed and blase approach to this crucial presidential race.

No one knows what will happen, though everybody wants to play pundit. And chances are when this thing is over, turnout will top 60% (as in 2004), the first two elections in a row with >60% turnout since the 1960s. At the end of it all, we may have the first woman in the White House (Clinton), the first African-American (Obama), the first Mormon (Romney), or the first Italian-American (Giuliani). The stakes are high and the dynamics confusing.

There are signs that this is the modern 1932 -- a major partisan and sectional realignment signaling a new political order -- or more ominously, the modern 1928. Signs of the latter already appear. Odds at the nomination (and indeed, the presidency) look better and better for an established New York Democrat (Al Smith/Hillary Clinton) who is breaking new ground (Catholic/woman) but comes from a bygone political era (Progressive New York in the late '10s/the Clinton '90s). Unlike Smith, Clinton polls better than her Republican opponents, but the opposition to her is equally vitriolic and impassioned, with a strong contingent of the party which is skeptical of her chances and of her political style.

Like 1928, a rather destructive presidency is ending, but few are offering grand solutions. Touchup politics is still the norm. This incredibly challenging environment is fodder for an unfortunate Hooverlike figure to win the White House, not a right-place, right-time Roosevelt.

Thoughts?

Yes. One, the Coolidge presidency was not a destructive presidency in the slightest. They did call it the "Roaring Twenties", after all. Two, this should be a poll.

Doesn't Iowa matter less since the primaries have been scheduled all in a row?

I would think that the Dem heir apparent wouldn't be known until early February.

Originally Posted by sean '90

Yes. One, the Coolidge presidency was not a destructive presidency in the slightest. They did call it the "Roaring Twenties", after all. Two, this should be a poll.

Um...the '20s "roared" at the eventual expense of most people. No Golden Age was this. Coolidge's policies also severely worsened economic disparity by once again stressing laissez-faire economics and the almighty dollar above all. The Great Depression happened because of a long string of presidencies like his, going back to the Industrial Revolution and the Gilded Age.

In any case, I think this should be a thread for discussion and debate, as that to me is more pertinent to the subject than a poll.

Originally Posted by Uzi

Doesn't Iowa matter less since the primaries have been scheduled all in a row?

I would think that the Dem heir apparent wouldn't be known until early February.

Depends. Hillary is the only one who can afford to lose Iowa. If either Obama or Edwards comes a distant third there, he is done. If it stays close to this three-way tie, the intrigue will continue beyond. But I expect one of the two men will be eliminated after Iowa. Hillary is meanwhile way favored in Nevada and New Hampshire. South Carolina is closer like Iowa but slightly favors Hillary at the moment. Meanwhile Michigan and Florida (both strong Hillary states) upsetting the status quo throws a wildcard into the mix and both may provide even stronger boosts for the frontrunner from New York.

The only way things will stay interesting on the Dem side past January 29 is a jumbled scenario like this: Edwards wins Iowa (with Hillary a close third after Obama), Hillary wins easily in Nevada, wins narrowly in New Hampshire with Obama second, Obama wins South Carolina. At that point Hillary would have Nevada, Michigan, Florida, and New Hampshire, but would lack two key states (Iowa and South Carolina). Then February 5 breaks the tie somehow. But at the moment I don't see this happening.

Anyway, this is all OT. What do you think of the comparison to 1928/1932? Which is this election more like?

Originally Posted by 1990

The Great Depression happened because of a long string of presidencies like his, going back to the Industrial Revolution and the Gilded Age.

Not true.

10

I am sorry, but Edwards' "Workingman's Blues" routine is getting stale. I just don't trust that he has any foreign policy cred, whatsoever.

Obama? Well, he <i>is</i> loved in Kenya. You know I like him, but ...

As for Hillary. I can't stand listening to her. BUT, when my daughter was born in Tallinn Central Hospital in 2003, as I was wandering the halls, I saw that Hillary had indeed visited said hospital sometime during her tenure as first lady.

Ie. she's been places, knows people, and -- most of all -- shit.

IMO 2004 = 1928 and 2008 = 1932, With Bush being a Coolidge-Hoover hybrid and John Kerry being equivalent to Al Smith. IMO we need to remember not to see the 1932 election and that Regeneracy through the lens post-WW2 hagiographies, FDR wasn't that radical right off the bat, to a large degree he just expanded the things Hoover started and gave them more teeth. It wasn't until the "2nd New Deal" of the mid-decade and the 1936 election that the radicalism really started, when FDR burned the bridges he had with business interests and more aligned himself with the increasingly radical electorate. The period around the 1936 election and afterwards was also the period of organized labor having great victories.

Originally Posted by Uzi

I am sorry, but Edwards' "Workingman's Blues" routine is getting stale. I just don't trust that he has any foreign policy cred, whatsoever.

Obama? Well, he <i>is</i> loved in Kenya. You know I like him, but ...

As for Hillary. I can't stand listening to her. BUT, when my daughter was born in Tallinn Central Hospital in 2003, as I was wandering the halls, I saw that Hillary had indeed visited said hospital sometime during her tenure as first lady.

Ie. she's been places, knows people, and -- most of all -- shit.

Hey, Uzi! I'm got a response to your Estonian monarchy troubles on my introduction thread.

I don't think that a comparison is that easy, given that the specifics this time around are as different as the specifics of the early Revolutionary, Civil War, and Depression were different from each other. Having said that, I think that 2008 will be more similar to 1932.

In 1928, Hoover was popular, and in 2004, Bush was popular enough to be reelected (although by a few votes). But there were some important differences. During the 1928 election, the nation was undeniably in a 3T period, pretty much free from political turmoil. In 2004, in the shadow of 9/11, and the Iraqi War, social unrest appeared on the verge of making a dramatic comeback, and many people of the time predicted a new era of turmoil and unrest (even a new Civil War) in the aftermath of the elections.

In 1929, the catalyst occurred. In 2005, the catalyst arguably occurred when Katrina struck. Through 1929, Hoover remained popular, and most believed that the stock market crash was just a temporary set back. It wasn't until 1930 that people feared that a social crisis was brewing. The political meltdown of Hoover did not begin until 1931, when destitution started to become a staple of daily American life and he appeared unable and/or unwilling to deal with the crisis. This time around, however, the meltdown of Bush occurred just after he was reelected. It began before Katrina, although it was a slow process. The Iraqi War, cronyism, corruption, and several years of neocon politics and ideology seemed to be wearing down on Americans (It is this shift, along with several other major trends that began in that year or next, that provides my "we be 4t" case). When Katrina happened, these trends apparent over 2005 (even if only in retrospect) became a raging perfect storm, one powerful enough to lead almost immediately to the end of the contemporary conservative era, whether you define it in terms of the last 2T starting with Nixon/Goldwater, or the prior 3T with Reagan/Bush Sr.

It is easy to compare the midterms of 1930 and 2006. After a Republican presidential victory, Democrats gained a number of seats in response to Republican governing failures. And in both cases, while the presidents became the main punching bags for public discontent (with Hoover falling out of favor much later than Bush), the shift is much larger than merely discontent with the president (and the other rulers).

The leaders of the American Revolution are famous for stating that the revolution was not the war itself. Rather, the revolution was the change in thought and mindset that occurred before the war happened. They state that the war was a result of the revolution. During the two and a half years from the Boston Tea Party to the Declaration of Independence Americans - which had loved, cherished, and supported the British Monarchy since the Glorious Revolution - had rejected the British Crown, Monarchy, and British products and culture in a raging and increasingly violent firestorm. A similar revolution in thought occurred in 1930 or 1931, resulting in the rejection of the laissez-faire capitalism/corporatism, a wider embrace of socialist thinking, and a growing preoccupation of social, political, and political justice. This time around, the revolution has seemingly occurred in 2005 or in 2006. Like the other two revolutions I had mentioned, while the figureheads became symbolic targets of hatred, ridicule, and even violence, it was not merely the person, or even political party being rejected. What was rejected in that very short period of time was the social/political thesis that had reigned since the end of the prior Crisis.

In other turnings, in case of a similar failure, the offending person would merely be replaced, and things would generally carry on, even in Awakening (but not without social and political turmoil). But as a Crisis begins, a general systemic Crisis occurs, which results in a systemic meltdown, and results in a cascade. In between 2005 and 2007, we have seen Hurricane Katrina, public discontent over the war, the president, and the economy, the collapse of the Housing Bubble, the Sub-Prime Lending Crisis, countless corporate and governmental scandals, and many other cascade events.

The messages of the revolution are blogged daily on the Internet. When you read it carefully, it is not specifically a message against Bush, or the Republicans. Rather, it is a message against the entire way of conducting politics, which has its origins in the New Deal and War years of FDR. Dana Blankenhorn has some insight into the revolutionary memes. He lists them as accessibility, transparancy, openness, connectability. Of course, there are many other memes emerging on the technological and intellectual frontier, memes that should enter the mainstream after the 2008 election.

As Odin states, 1932 was FDR's cautionary year, and it was 1936 that he turned radical. Likewise, the same could be said about Lincoln. As the Civil War was drawing to a close, Lincoln ran for reelection on a much more radical platform than his 1860 one. So, we will not see the new values implemented immediately in 2008. Rather, we will likely dabble in them, test them out. But in 2012, the movement will by then be much more radical.

Mr. Reed, you provide an excellent (EXCELLENT) argument for 2005 starting the 4T. But I have to wonder why the authors themselves were so skeptical of Katrina starting the 4T. If anything, they seem to be leaning 3T still.

Originally Posted by 1990

Mr. Reed, you provide an excellent (EXCELLENT) argument for 2005 starting the 4T. But I have to wonder why the authors themselves were so skeptical of Katrina starting the 4T. If anything, they seem to be leaning 3T still.

Thanks. Us readers are free to publicly speculate. They don't have that luxury. If they say "we be 4t", then for their sake, we had better in a 4T, or risk being seen as crackpots.

Great post, Robert! I must be channeling your thoughts or something because that's exactly my thinking on why we be 4T.

Mr. Reed, you just PWNED zilch!!!!!!

Originally Posted by sean '90

Mr. Reed, you just PWNED zilch!!!!!!

It's not that hard to pwn Marc Lamb.

Pundits often say that Democrats are favored in this election just because people are so sick of Bush's policies and the status quo, and that they (Democrats) aren't articulating a real alternative. Was this said of Roosevelt in 1932? i.e. did he win on stealth in spite of a skeptical media and due mostly to anti-Hoover sentiment, or was his "plan" clearly articulated from the beginning?

Originally Posted by 1990

Pundits often say that Democrats are favored in this election just because people are so sick of Bush's policies and the status quo, and that they (Democrats) aren't articulating a real alternative. Was this said of Roosevelt in 1932? i.e. did he win on stealth in spite of a skeptical media and due mostly to anti-Hoover sentiment, or was his "plan" clearly articulated from the beginning?

From everything I've read about the 1932 election, FDR had no preplanned program in mind. However, dispite having the reputation of being an intellectual lightweight, the nickname "featherduster" was not a complement, he understood enough to know that things had to change. More importantly, he knew that the first 100 days of his administration were crucial. The country had a sense of urgency that allowed him to declare a bank holiday and pass the other early new deal measures before the pattern of business as usual had a chance to redecend over Washington.

As for where we are now, I fear that we may be getting ready to get the worst of both 1928 and 1932. IOW, because of the safeguards in place to prevent a 1929 style economic collapse, there is a big chance that the housing bubble and our other economic troubles will continue slowly deteriorate but remain secondary to the Iraq situation until after the next election and we end up with a president who is elected to be cautious and does not have the internal flexability of an FDR.

If the junior senator from New York is elected president next year, my fear of this happening will be greatly increased.

Originally Posted by 1990

Pundits often say that Democrats are favored in this election just because people are so sick of Bush's policies and the status quo, and that they (Democrats) aren't articulating a real alternative. Was this said of Roosevelt in 1932? i.e. did he win on stealth in spite of a skeptical media and due mostly to anti-Hoover sentiment, or was his "plan" clearly articulated from the beginning?

In 1932 people mainly voted for FDR because (1.) he wasn't Hoover and (2.) people didn't seem to notice issue flip-flopping nearly as much then it seems. He, an ESTP, was considered (rightly, given his personality) a dilettante and an intellectual lightweight compared to the "administrative brilliance" and ideological consistency of the INTJ Hoover. As Herbal Tee stated, what FDR DID understand was that things needed to change. Ironically FDRs "intellectual lightweightness" may have helped him because he never really gave a shit (unlike Hoover) about adherence to classical economic theory. He one stated quite bluntly "Just try something and if it doesn't world admit it frankly and try something else."

Originally Posted by Odin

In 1932 people mainly voted for FDR because (1.) he wasn't Hoover and (2.) people didn't seem to notice issue flip-flopping nearly as much then it seems. He, an ESTP, was considered (rightly, given his personality) a dilettante and an intellectual lightweight compared to the "administrative brilliance" and ideological consistency of the INTJ Hoover. As Herbal Tee stated, what FDR DID understand was that things needed to change. Ironically FDRs "intellectual lightweightness" may have helped him because he never really gave a shit (unlike Hoover) about adherence to classical economic theory. He one stated quite bluntly "Just try something and if it doesn't world admit it frankly and try something else."

So in seeking the GC we shouldn't be looking for some perfect, polished figure, but rather for someone who has a strong sense of public opinion and who knows, however generally, that people want and need change. That fits many of the contenders out there.

And so, we *could* be at that circa-1931 breaking point right now.

Originally Posted by Odin

In 1932 people mainly voted for FDR because (1.) he wasn't Hoover and (2.) people didn't seem to notice issue flip-flopping nearly as much then it seems. He, an ESTP, was considered (rightly, given his personality) a dilettante and an intellectual lightweight compared to the "administrative brilliance" and ideological consistency of the INTJ Hoover. As Herbal Tee stated, what FDR DID understand was that things needed to change. Ironically FDRs "intellectual lightweightness" may have helped him because he never really gave a shit (unlike Hoover) about adherence to classical economic theory. He one stated quite bluntly "Just try something and if it doesn't world admit it frankly and try something else."

Someone's been doing some reading

Originally Posted by Odin

As Herbal Tee stated, what FDR DID understand was that things needed to change. Ironically FDRs "intellectual lightweightness" may have helped him because he never really gave a shit (unlike Hoover) about adherence to classical economic theory. He one stated quite bluntly "Just try something and if it doesn't work admit it frankly and try something else."

If only more people followed this course of action, the world would be a better place. *Sigh*

Originally Posted by sean '90

Mr. Reed, you just PWNED zilch!!!!!!

Eh? What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by sean '90

If only more people followed this course of action, the world would be a better place. *Sigh*

That's why 4T's, with all of their harshness, have to happen. Most of the time, the power built up by establishment institutions is too strong to allow for anything more than cosmetic change. During a 4T, nearly everything is "new and yealding" to paraphraise the authors and a discredited establishment can be changed into something completely different.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Someone's been doing some reading

Bought a book on the Great Depression, called simply The Great Depression: America 1929-1941, and just finished reading it on Sunday, very good book. The author describes the main force in the depression is a surge of a populist communitarian feeling and "class consciousness" among working class people and most middle class people that fits S&Hs description of a Regeneracy perfectly (especially S&H's mention of returning to the timeless and the classical).

Originally Posted by herbal tee

That's why 4T's, with all of their harshness, have to happen. Most of the time, the power built up by establishment institutions is too strong to allow for anything more than cosmetic change. During a 4T, nearly everything is "new and yealding" to paraphraise the authors and a discredited establishment can be changed into something completely different.

3Ts are great times for entrenched elites and dreadful for everyone else. At best those not in the entrenched elites merely tread water. Social organization is at its nadir (thanks to the absence of influential Civics), and most people try to salve their economic distress with hedonism. People are confronted with a plethora of conflicting ideologies and choose the one that appears safest and most prestigious -- which means that they end up with whatever is best packaged. Corporations and large landowners pay the most to PR men, advertising agencies, and right-wing politicians who offer stasis -- and get the service of the slickest 'intellectual hired guns' capable of creating the fantasy of people still living well. People end up with weak leaders who offer little and demand little of people.

The 4T comes about when some Idealist agenda attracts the majority of first-wave Civics. GIs could be largely ignored politically in 1938 -- but not in 1932.

1928 or 1932? 1928, hands down. The bubble hasn't burst yet, hedonism and religious fundamentalism are in conflict. Dubya may be discredited, but he still succeeds at preaching to the choir. Celebrity circuses are still in play.