Originally Posted by jamesdglick

-Is Odin kidding? Or going back to "ideological posturing"?!

Father Coughlin was a Leftist, not a Rightie; he started out supporting the New Deal, and only turned against it because it wasn't Anti-Capitalist enough for him.

FDR had no problem with Coughlin the Demagogue, as long as he was his Demagogue.

Sheesh.

Wow, more shameless lies.

Originally Posted by Odin

Vandals Strike (African-American) Congressman's Office With Spray-Painted Swastika

Now which brownshirts exactly would those be again?

It could have just as easily been someone who supports Obama's health care reform, just adding some "evidence" for Pelosi's claims of Nazi symbols. (Perhaps they haven't received national attention, but she makes the claim, and then I start seeing them. It'd be such a convenient way to act in marginalizing the other side, but manufacturing more crazies than there actually are. For all his apparent indignation over it, Obama's probably happy for all of the birther idiocy, since his supporters can paint with a broad brush again and discredit those who might have legitimate questions about his policies.

The problem is, no one can know what side he is on until the bastard is caught. Hopefully it will happen soon, but I fear it won't. Until then, each side will without evidence accuse the other side of malicious intent. And thus, your spiral continues, assisted by all sides.

Originally Posted by playwrite

And second this hapless government bit is just plain silly. The wing nuts that organize into some violent terrorist groups and attempt to implement will get crushed.

I think you underestimate the staying power of insurgencies. I'm also (in this scenario) assuming that not all of the insurgent groups will be right-wing. That being said, I still don't see this scenario as particularly likely yet.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

47% of American voters voted against Obama, and he has yet to erode some of the passionate hatred for his agenda among a large minority.

Not only has Obama failed to soothe conservatives, he actually (if you look at polling crosstabs) appears to be losing Democratic support faster than independent and Republican support. It seems hope just isn't enough.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The typical right-wing economic interests fear the worst from liberals and expect the best from conservatives. . . Liberals just can't win the hearts and minds of tycoons and executives.

Support for big business is not a purely conservative affair. I know Democrats have postured themselves as friends of the working class, but do try to look beyond the rhetoric to actual policy. In the real world, the insurance and pharmaceutical industries are fairly happy with the reform proposals on the table. Honestly, the reforms currently envisioned are so piecemeal and minor as to render the whole debate ridiculous. We have liberals cheering on the "crucial" reforms and conservatives quaking in fear at the impending "socialism." It's just silly. Nothing much will change regardless of who wins.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

Father Coughlin was a Leftist, not a Rightie; he started out supporting the New Deal, and only turned against it because it wasn't Anti-Capitalist enough for him. FDR had no problem with Coughlin the Demagogue, as long as he was his Demagogue.

Originally Posted by Odin

Wow, more shameless lies.

Actually, Odin, he's right. Coughlin did support Roosevelt early on, and then turned against him. I'm pretty sure he backed Huey Long. On economic policy, he was very much in favor of government intervention. This was also true of every other kind of policy. He was after all, a fascist sympathizer.

Now, whether it's appropriate to call Coughlin a "leftist" -- that doesn't really work. At the time, he was on the leading edge of politics (i.e. true bottom, most likely). We don't seem to have a good analogue to Father Coughlin in this Crisis, at least not yet. We'd need someone, say, with a true left political inclination that opposed Obama.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Not only has Obama failed to soothe conservatives, he actually (if you look at polling crosstabs) appears to be losing Democratic support faster than independent and Republican support. It seems hope just isn't enough.

My sense is that Mr. Obama is playing it too cautious. As that, however, was the hallmark of his campaign-- bold decisive action, but not until there is not other choice-- there's still a strong chance that he'll step up to the plate. In his own good time, however. Let's just hope it's in time.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Support for big business is not a purely conservative affair. I know Democrats have postured themselves as friends of the working class, but do try to look beyond the rhetoric to actual policy. In the real world, the insurance and pharmaceutical industries are fairly happy with the reform proposals on the table. Honestly, the reforms currently envisioned are so piecemeal and minor as to render the whole debate ridiculous. We have liberals cheering on the "crucial" reforms and conservatives quaking in fear at the impending "socialism." It's just silly. Nothing much will change regardless of who wins.

You bet it's silly. But real change better happen over the next couple of years. If not... we're so screwed.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I think you underestimate the staying power of insurgencies. I'm also (in this scenario) assuming that not all of the insurgent groups will be right-wing. That being said, I still don't see this scenario as particularly likely yet.

I would agree that a well established insurgency has staying power. The IRA and PLO might illustrate. I can't dismiss the possiblity of left wing insurgent elements. Yet, what issues would they center on? During the Bush 43 era, neither the gun or religious aspects of the 'militia' movement had much to complain about. Thus, not a lot of spiraling happened. Seeing progressive violent movements rise in opposition to Obama doesn't seem likely, either.

I also think it takes two to spiral. We have seen a good deal of rhetoric and occasional violence, mostly coming from the right, and most of the violence falls into the lone nut category. A lot of the violence is essentially suicidal. The perp is generally caught, and the structure of the violence is such that he is apt to get caught.

An effective insurgency would be different. I'd expect a cell structure, lots of people cooperating, and sustainable operations.

I'd also expect that someone has to respond to the other side. After September 11th there was talk of invasion and turning deserts into glass. Terrorist spirals escalate when the natural response to terror is greater terror, when the individual being terrorized instinctively pushes to use force in response.

Thus, the best thing Clinton 42 did in the early 80s was to put in kinder gentler rules of engagement when the FBI and BATF confronted right wing militia type groups that might develop into parts of an insurgency. I don't see Obama changing this. The worst thing the government could do is repeat Waco, to try to break into a church to take away guns, and in the process kill women and children. I'm not saying that the government wasn't right to be concerned about Waco, but violence isn't the way to prevent a spiral of violence.

So, yes, the noise level is higher than I'd like it. There is a good deal of rhetoric being thrown around. Still, I don't see anything like Bleeding Kansas or Boston in the early to mid 1770s.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Actually, Odin, he's right. Coughlin did support Roosevelt early on, and then turned against him. I'm pretty sure he backed Huey Long. On economic policy, he was very much in favor of government intervention. This was also true of every other kind of policy. He was after all, a fascist sympathizer.

Now, whether it's appropriate to call Coughlin a "leftist" -- that doesn't really work. At the time, he was on the leading edge of politics (i.e. true bottom, most likely). We don't seem to have a good analogue to Father Coughlin in this Crisis, at least not yet. We'd need someone, say, with a true left political inclination that opposed Obama.

Really? I guess I must have misremembered what I've read about him in a book on the Depression I have.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Not only has Obama failed to soothe conservatives, he actually (if you look at polling crosstabs) appears to be losing Democratic support faster than independent and Republican support. It seems hope just isn't enough.

He may be waiting for the Hard Right opposition to implode.

We Americans are not a patient people... until all other options vanish.

Support for big business is not a purely conservative affair. I know Democrats have postured themselves as friends of the working class, but do try to look beyond the rhetoric to actual policy. In the real world, the insurance and pharmaceutical industries are fairly happy with the reform proposals on the table. Honestly, the reforms currently envisioned are so piecemeal and minor as to render the whole debate ridiculous. We have liberals cheering on the "crucial" reforms and conservatives quaking in fear at the impending "socialism." It's just silly. Nothing much will change regardless of who wins.

There will have to be compromises. Some sort of national healthcare may offer a minimum of tax-funded medical care for those who have catastrophic ailments that the insurance industry wants to slough off. Nobody expects either Big Pharma or the insurance industry to lose the profitable cash cows that they now have. Government may have to extend Medicare to the disabled or Medicaid to the under-employed.

Social Security did not kill the life-insurance industry.

Kurt Horner posted this:

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Now, whether it's appropriate to call Coughlin a "leftist" -- that doesn't really work...

...but then posted this:

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

...We don't seem to have a good analogue to Father Coughlin in this Crisis, at least not yet. We'd need someone, say, with a true left political inclination that opposed Obama.

...how can you say Father C wasn't a Leftie, and then say that to get a good Father C analogue, we'd need someone "with a true left political inclination"?

Anyway, no one would ever confuse anything Father C said with anything that a current Conservative or Libertarian would propose, including any of the radio talk show hosts Odin was whining about.

Originally Posted by Odin

I guess I must have misremembered what I've read about [Father Coughlin] in a book on the Depression I have.

-Or maybe your book is wrong; you might try reading Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" (I'm sure you'd love it), or try checking Wikipedia.

BTW, it's interesting that I post something, and your instant reaction is to screech "Lies!", but KH posts something, and you fall all over yourself to agree with him. How do you know KH isn't lying to you?

I'd suggest you go back and read some of the things I've posted, and look at them with un-prejudiced eyes. Anyway, I already accepted your apology in advance.

As for "astro-turfing":

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/08/11/mother_of_girl_who_asked_question_at_town_hall_is_ big_obama_donor.html

"Eleven-year-old [Astro-Turfer] Julia Hall asked: 'How do kids know what is true, and why do people want a new system that can -- that help more of us?'''"

Still no comments about the fact that the thugs who use violence at the town hall meetings seem to be wearing SEIU or ACORN t-shirts. I wonder why.

Still no notice on the hypocrisy of the supporters of the world's most famous community activist whing about community activism. I wonder why.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...this hapless government bit is just plain silly. The wing nuts that organize into some violent terrorist groups and attempt to implement will get crushed...

-Huh. Playwrite had no interest in killing of Iraqi Ba'athists who spent most of MAR 1991- MAR 2003 taking pot-shots at GIs and plotting to kill the POTUS, but the thought of killing his fellow Americans has PW rubbing his hands with glee. Of course, if trouble begins anytime in the next 10 years, I'll most likley be "crushing" the rebels, while PW & Haymarket will be running for the exit;

-The track record of governments vs. rebels during a 4T:

1) War of the Roses: The enthroned dynasty changed back and forth, but the final chapter was King Ricky getting killed by Hank the Upstart;

2) War with Spain: Good Queen Bess was able to hold down the Catholic rebels during her reign (and ever after, unless you include King Jimbo in 1688);

3) Glorious Revolution: King Jimbo was overthrown and replaced by Willi the Dutchman, although the Jacobites kept fighting (off & on) until 1746;

4) AWI: Wingnut Founding Fathers achieve successful seccessionist movement vs. King George;

5) ACW: The badly outnumbered rebels hold out for 4 years (or more, if you count the KKK), in the course of which America enjoys it's deadliest war since the founding;

6) WWII: We lucked out, since the Commies in this country were on the US Government's side (at least between 22 June 1941 - 8 May 1945), and then were "crushed" in the late 40s & early 50s.

So, historically, it's a mixed bag, although I'll point out that all of the successful 4T insurgencies eventually rose above stage 1 or 2 guerilla warfare, and resulted in conventional combat; in some cases, they started with conventional combat.

---
Back to Playwrite:

I'd still love to know: When PW was supposedly visiting SE Asia, did he bother to check out the "Anti-War" movement's handiwork in the re-education camps, and in the killing fields? The answer seems to be NO...

Back to Haymarket':

I'd still love to know: Who paid Haymarket's Military Service Tax? Come on, I know you're retired, Haymarket. I'd think it'd be easy to go check out the old county draft records from 1969. You can look the guy up, and thank him for his inconvenience...

---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers (self-professed Lefties, mostly) whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

-Huh. Playwrite had no interest in killing of Iraqi Ba'athists who spent most of MAR 1991- MAR 2003 taking pot-shots at GIs and plotting to kill the POTUS, but the thought of killing his fellow Americans has PW rubbing his hands with glee.

"... and when did you stop beating your wife?" This is the level of discourse you moronic crankies have stoop to. You're only kidding yourselves.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

...
So, historically, it's a mixed bag,

Yea, the successuful ones are those by Progressives overthrowing the repressive status quo. That's why whatever you crankies muster, if anything, is doomed to fail - history is going the other way.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

...how can you say Father C wasn't a Leftie, and then say that to get a good Father C analogue, we'd need someone "with a true left political inclination"?

Kurt's analogy was a reference to his "Political Archetypes" thread in a different section of this forum (I believe it's under the book and theories of history section, or whatever it's called). I won't go into too many details (you can read about it in that thread), but he was saying that due to the patterns of history in his theory regarding the leading edge of politics, trailing edge of politics, and the mainstream, is that Fr Coughlin's position relative to those political divisions in the 1930s would equate to someone who is today a leftist.

This is hard to explain coming out of my mouth, but my main point is that Kurt's analogy is valid, even though Fr Coughlin wasn't a "true leftist" according to Kurt's terminology. I'm sure he can elaborate.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

My sense is that Mr. Obama is playing it too cautious. As that, however, was the hallmark of his campaign-- bold decisive action, but not until there is not other choice-- there's still a strong chance that he'll step up to the plate. In his own good time, however. Let's just hope it's in time.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

He may be waiting for the Hard Right opposition to implode.

We Americans are not a patient people... until all other options vanish.

Both of these statements back up the points I made earlier. There are at least as many people afraid Obama will change too little as are afraid he'll change too much. This is another 4T indicator -- moderate views are a flaw, not a virtue.

This leads into Bob's point:

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I can't dismiss the possibility of left wing insurgent elements. Yet, what issues would they center on? During the Bush 43 era, neither the gun or religious aspects of the 'militia' movement had much to complain about. Thus, not a lot of spiraling happened. Seeing progressive violent movements rise in opposition to Obama doesn't seem likely, either.

Not yet, but what happens when (and if) folks like pbrower2a conclude that Obama isn't waiting for the Right to implode, that he isn't a shrewd plotter but just another tool. What then?

It seems as if Father Coughlin was an anti-semetic, rascist populist -- to the left of FDR econonically but with fascist sympathies. He is hard to box in in terms of today's political landscape -- he's a cross between Move On and the right wing bloggers and Fox taking heads.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

If such a thing comes to pass, then I doubt this conflict would be anything like the Civil War. Rather, we would probably have multiple competing insurgencies and a hapless government attempting to keep a lid on it to no avail.

As far as a comparison with Civil War I (North vs. South) I agree. I have seen the postulated Civil War II as bearing a LOT more resemblance to the Spanish Civil War of the last 4T. (Two armies each made up mostly of armed ideologues - mostly Fascist on one side, mostly Communist on the other - fighting over the whole ball of wax.)

Still, your version also rings quite true - if anything, now that I think about it, even more likely than my 'Spanish Civil War redux' idea.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I think you underestimate the staying power of insurgencies. I'm also (in this scenario) assuming that not all of the insurgent groups will be right-wing. (snip)

Especially if said insurgencies are getting support of various kinds (money, munitions, etc.) from overseas. And it's entirely possible, IMO, that right-wing insurgents could get such support from people who actually despise them and everything they stand for, but nonetheless see them as a way to weaken the US, and thus worthy of support anyway, for that reason alone.

And as for the left-wing insurgents, the support could be from foreign interests who geniunely wish them the best.

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

As far as a comparison with Civil War I (North vs. South) I agree. I have seen the postulated Civil War II as bearing a LOT more resemblance to the Spanish Civil War of the last 4T. (Two armies each made up mostly of armed ideologues - mostly Fascist on one side, mostly Communist on the other - fighting over the whole ball of wax.)

Still, take a look at the ideas being fought over in the Spanish Civil War. The Communist and Fascist factions were both authoritarian with rigid ideas on what groups must have absolute power. Both systems have since been to a great deal discredited.

At that time industrial democracy was also struggling badly. A case could be made at that time that democracy was fatally flawed. It resulted in poverty of the workers, and boom bust economies that were spending more and more time in bust mode. Don't underestimate the importance of Keynesian economics and the New Deal in discrediting authoritarian government.

I don't anticipate a spiral of violence taking off until it is clear that representative government isn't going to give the people a reasonable life style. While there is a great deal of yelling and screaming about the politicians going on, the United States has not yet given up on democracy.

Glick: Kurt is trustworthy, you are not.

As for the supposed "astroturf" on my side, unions and MoveOn.Org are grassroots organizations, not astroturf. The right-wing obsession with ACORN just shows their racism, the ACORN-bashing essentially people going nuts because your kind thinks minorities shouldn't vote.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Still, take a look at the ideas being fought over in the Spanish Civil War. The Communist and Fascist factions were both authoritarian with rigid ideas on what groups must have absolute power. Both systems have since been to a great deal discredited.

At that time industrial democracy was also struggling badly. A case could be made at that time that democracy was fatally flawed. It resulted in poverty of the workers, and boom bust economies that were spending more and more time in bust mode. Don't underestimate the importance of Keynesian economics and the New Deal in discrediting authoritarian government.

Why do you think I agreed with Kurt Horner's idea of competing insurgencies and a resulting welter of low-intensity conflicts, as opposed to an all-out civil war?

I don't anticipate a spiral of violence taking off until it is clear that representative government isn't going to give the people a reasonable life style. While there is a great deal of yelling and screaming about the politicians going on, the United States has not yet given up on democracy.

Unfortunately, as noted elsewhere, an increasing number of politically active people on both sides are giving up on rational descourse with their opponents, and starting to conclude that force is the only thing 'those people' understand.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Still, take a look at the ideas being fought over in the Spanish Civil War. The Communist and Fascist factions were both authoritarian with rigid ideas on what groups must have absolute power. Both systems have since been to a great deal discredited.

At that time industrial democracy was also struggling badly. A case could be made at that time that democracy was fatally flawed. It resulted in poverty of the workers, and boom bust economies that were spending more and more time in bust mode. Don't underestimate the importance of Keynesian economics and the New Deal in discrediting authoritarian government.

I don't anticipate a spiral of violence taking off until it is clear that representative government isn't going to give the people a reasonable life style. While there is a great deal of yelling and screaming about the politicians going on, the United States has not yet given up on democracy.

We can do whatever we want, pass as much as we want, spend as much as we want, print as much as we want and seriously weaken or cripple our financial and military capabilities around the the world will catch up with your side and bite you in the ass eventually. Oh, and when it does, your side will paying for it. BTW, the We's will be re-established, re-formed, highly armed, raking it in and remaining nuetral as the blue world splinters, fractures, spirals downwards, emplodes and tears itself apart. A government that represents no authority and possesses no authority is an empty shell and completely meaningless.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

We can do whatever we want, pass as much as we want, spend as much as we want, print as much as we want and seriously weaken or cripple our financial and military capabilities around the the world will catch up with your side and bite you in the ass eventually. Oh, and when it does, your side will paying for it. BTW, the We's will be re-established, re-formed, highly armed, raking it in and remaining nuetral as the blue world splinters, fractures, spirals downwards, emplodes and tears itself apart. A government that represents no authority and possesses no authority is an empty shell and completely meaningless.

You aren't making any sense.

Originally Posted by Odin

You aren't making any sense.

I think that he means that we Democrats will end up turning against each other and that people like he will profiteer from the situation and put themselves in the position to take over after we really foul up.

You are right; it makes no logical sense.

According to Playwrite, this statement is sooo off:

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

Playwrite had no interest in killing Iraqi Ba'athists who spent most of MAR 1991- MAR 2003 taking pot-shots at GIs and plotting to kill the POTUS, but the thought of killing his fellow Americans has PW rubbing his hands with glee. Of course, if trouble begins anytime in the next 10 years, I'll most likley be "crushing" the rebels, while PW & Haymarket will be running for the exit...

...because there's no hand rubbing glee here:

Originally Posted by playwrite

First, because these wing nuts are a minority and getting smaller; that's really what is underlying their rage and anxiety. And second this hapless government bit is just plain silly. The wing nuts that organize into some violent terrorist groups and attempt to implement will get crushed. There could be some localized violence, but generally as a group their political (or possibly otherwise) demise is inevitable - just your typical 4T flush of the toilet...

Sure.

Just like there's no wishful thinking here:

Originally Posted by playwrite

... the successuful ones are those by Progressives overthrowing the repressive status quo...

-The Founding Fathers' limited government was about as anti-Progressive as you could get, which is why Progressives spend so much of their time denigrating the FFs and their works. And the where did the Tories go after they lost? Uh, Canada...

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

...Kurt's analogy was a reference to his "Political Archetypes" thread in a different section of this forum...

This is hard to explain coming out of my mouth, but my main point is that Kurt's analogy is valid, even though Fr Coughlin wasn't a "true leftist" according to Kurt's terminology. I'm sure he can elaborate...

-I think KH is on his own...

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

...It seems as if Father Coughlin was an anti-semetic, rascist populist -- to the left of FDR econonically but with fascist sympathies. He is hard to box in in terms of today's political landscape -- he's a cross between Move On and the right wing bloggers and Fox taking heads...

-Move On I'll leave to others.

Other than the fact that Father C is a broadcaster, and that FDR's silencing of Father C offers a plan by which President Obama can shut up critics who get in his way, which "Fox talking head" is anti-semitic, racist, or has fascist sympathies? I haven't seen Fox News in months; do tell.

BTW, instead of "anti-semite", you might consider using Irshad Manji's term "Jew-Basher", since it follows a noted Leftie's principle of keeping language to the point:

http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html

...although I myself have lapsed wrt simplicity of language, although for (hopefully) humorous effect...

Originally Posted by Odin

"You can't have a reasonable discussion with a man who prefers shooting you to being convinced by you."

--Karl Popper

The Teabaggers are mental midgets that simply regurgitate what Rush and Beck and O'Reilly tell them, facts be damned. They are like rabid dogs.

1) Ignoring the fact that the violence so far has been Union thugs & Acorners attacking the Teabaggers.

2) Uh, mental midgets that regurgitate what others tell them, facts be damned, as opposed to:

Originally Posted by Odin

All the right-wing hate radio and people like Lou Dobbs can be compared to Father Coughlin...

...and to which I replied, and to which Odin's reaction was:

Originally Posted by Odin

Wow, more shameless lies.

..and to which Odin was finally forced to admit:

Originally Posted by Odin

Really? I guess I must have misremembered what I've read about him in a book on the Depression I have.

Originally Posted by Odin

Glick: Kurt is trustworthy, you are not...

-Apparently, I'm more trustworthy than you are.

Originally Posted by Odin

As for the supposed "astroturf" on my side, unions and MoveOn.Org are grassroots organizations, not astroturf...

-Apparently, the Leftie "grassroots" have to be bused in, wearing the same color t-shirts. That's a good thing, since it makes it easy for the cops to arrest them when they attack a Teabagger.

Originally Posted by Odin

The right-wing obsession with ACORN just shows their racism, the ACORN-bashing essentially people going nuts because your kind thinks minorities shouldn't vote...

-Minorities like Superman, Mickey Mouse, and the occassional fake or dead voter who isn't inconvenienced by a silly name.

Why doesn't fraud bother Lefties? Reminds of of the joke Charlie Rangel supposedly told: "When I die, I want to be buried in Chicago, where I'll be able to continue voting as a Democrat."

---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers (self-professed Lefties, mostly) whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Kurt's analogy was a reference to his "Political Archetypes" thread in a different section of this forum (I believe it's under the book and theories of history section, or whatever it's called). I won't go into too many details (you can read about it in that thread), but he was saying that due to the patterns of history in his theory regarding the leading edge of politics, trailing edge of politics, and the mainstream, is that Fr Coughlin's position relative to those political divisions in the 1930s would equate to someone who is today a leftist.

This is hard to explain coming out of my mouth, but my main point is that Kurt's analogy is valid, even though Fr Coughlin wasn't a "true leftist" according to Kurt's terminology. I'm sure he can elaborate.

You have it right. Relative to the political center, Coughlin was on the leading edge as it was aligned in his time (he was true bottom, favoring precise rules). The corresponding position today would be true left (favoring skepticism of authority).

A lot of the conservative protesters are like Coughlin in terms of archetype. But in terms of the historical cycle, they are not in the same position at all.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I think that he means that we Democrats will end up turning against each other and that people like he will profiteer from the situation and put themselves in the position to take over after we really foul up.

You are right; it makes no logical sense.

No, I was saying, we will be living in the newly formed world which seperated itself from your world. We might re-enter or attempt to re-claim after your world is done fighting its version of "The 30 Years War".