Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Except when it comes to gay marriage, in which case you expect everyone to "Kneel Before Zod!". Pardon the implication.

You are making no sense here. How is this an imposition on anyone?

A thought I just had is that "Right-Left" is not a good label for the horizontal axis, they are too loaded and based on the current Arc of Respectability and political prejudices. The Fascism and Communism of the Great Power Saeculum and early Millennial Saeculum were both "Lower-Right" even though they are thought of as ideological opposites because of the opposing motivations but both involved deference to authority and precise rules.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

You are making no sense here. How is this an imposition on anyone?

The Religious Right has this paranoid notion that we want to force churches to perform same-sex unions. It's total nonsense.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Are you sure? America wasn't ready. We were still decidedly 3T, as shown in the recent election of George "Weak Governance" Bush, a leader out of the Fillmore/Harding mold: a leader who asks little of people while enabling their greed and unfounded optimism in their own talents and the effectiveness of a speculative boom.

The generational composition was clearly 3T: the adult Adaptive generation was still at or near the peak of its power, some members still in their late fifties. That's analogous to the late 1750s, the early 1850s, and the late 1910s. Were those times 4T? Then neither was 2001.

In any event, look at the American response soon afterward. To the positive we didn't round up people because they were Muslims (which would have been a crass blunder). Americans panicked some, but I can't imagine the phrase "Go shopping!" uttered by Abraham Lincoln in April 1861 or by FDR in 1941, and not solely due to linguistic anachronistic.

A 4T leader would have told people:

1. To prepare for major cutbacks in consumption -- especially of imports.

2. To quit using so d@mn much petroleum and energy on the whole (drive less, carpool, turn up temperatures on air conditioners and turn down temperatures on heating in the winter -- and wear sweaters inside to tolerate inside temperatures in the 60s in winter).

3. To give up bad habits like alcoholism and drug use.

4. To get in shape so that one can be fit for military duty if young or for work in a defense plant if not so young.

5. To save more and buy war bonds -- and absolutely DO NOT HOARD!

6. To plant Victory Gardens.

7. To prepare for blackouts.

8. To be alert but do not accept rumors at face value.

9. To expect tax increases as well as new taxes.

10. Make it do or do without. Patch and repair, make things last another season...

....

We weren't 4T in 2001. We are now.

People usually aren't ready for the 4T when it hits. You could make the case that we spent the next few years after 9/11 flailing around.

There are good arguments on both sides.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I would predict that you can't do that. Both this theory and turning theory are supposed to be driven by aggregate changes in behavior of millions of people. To achieve retrograde motion would require extreme levels of violence directed at very specific political groups. And that's political groups, not ethnic or religious. It seems fairly unlikely that you would have bloodshed substantial enough and targeted enough to cause retrograde motion. In fact, attempting to do so seems likely to produce a rising generation that pushes politics in the other direction all the more strongly.

Or in the case of 19th Century Europe, where the Crisis of 1848 failed for the most part: Retro-active movement can be achieved, but you are only cheating the reaper for a short amount of time, eventually it will return to where you departed from, and cultural death will occur.

My favorite example would be the Ringstrasse project in Wien. Where they tore down the wall that surrounded the city and replaced it with a Boulevard which had buildings that were built using styles from the past:

A Neo-Renaissance University, a Neo-Classical Parliament, a Neo-Gothic Town Hall, a Neo-Gothic Church, a Neo-Renaissance Opera House, etc.

To quote Otto Wagner, who joined the secessionists along with Gustav Klimt:

"A project like the Ringstrasse is a dead end. Nothing new will ever come from copying they past."

As for the rising generation, looking at the Sessionists vs. the Ringstrasse in Wien shows that the most dangerous thing for them is that they eventually become obsessed with death, decay, and destruction, as Shiele (Klimt's protege) demonstrates. So after the rising generation has succeeded in destroying the decaying retro-active society then there's nothing left to destroy, these rising generations essentially cannibalize themselves until they peter and die out.

So essentially when you see retro-active movement on the wheel then you know a society is approaching cultural death.

Danke Shone Mr. Horner,

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I've discussed this at length here in the past, and my mind is not going to change. Having read T4T, there is no question in my mind that if the book is correct, 9/11 was the start of the 4T. The "catalyst", whatever you want to call it. It is simply not possible to interpret it any other way.

The fact that the majority of people on this site interpret events otherwise would indicate that you can interpret it another way. This doesn't mean the majority is right, but your position isn't exactly self-evident.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

It can be argued whether it was or not. Certainly there was no draft, no "total war". What cannot be argued is that the Democrat response to the current economic situation is straight out of the Democrat playbook from the last crisis. What does that mean to you, from your perspective?

That the establishment is, unsurprisingly, resistant to change and that we are still very early in the Crisis.

The 4T is upon us. Evil muslims slowly building secret armies since just after 9/11 are now preparing to conquer all of pakistan, then the world. Islamics are also developing secret arsenals of hundreds of nukes in iran and syria as well as the dozen they plan on capturing in pakistan, the pakistani arsenal has probably already fallen. When are you going to realize the threat, hundreds of nukes are being placed in our cities as well as those of europe and latin america. Thousands of cities in the western world may dissappear in a matter of seconds because of your ignorance and incompetence. We must kick out all the illegals, there are only here for the purposes of infiltration, the survival of civilization depends on it. We cannot allow ourselves to be branded in gods eyes as sodom because of the views of a fringe minority lifestyle, because if we do god will allow and authorize this attack to take place and the elect will be annihilated by the forces of satan because we betrayed the lord. Ban gay marriage the survival of christendom depends on it. When will you realize that thousands of islamic nukes are assembled to attack the west and ensure islamic world conquest, while further north, tens of thousands of russian nukes are being assembled for russia's own bid for world conquest.

Originally Posted by Odin

A thought I just had is that "Right-Left" is not a good label for the horizontal axis, they are too loaded and based on the current Arc of Respectability and political prejudices. The Fascism and Communism of the Great Power Saeculum and early Millennial Saeculum were both "Lower-Right" even though they are thought of as ideological opposites because of the opposing motivations but both involved deference to authority and precise rules.

Unfortunately, any chart will have a left side and a right side and if they didn't correspond to the general notion of left-wing and right-wing, then people would be really confused. I could come up with names for the various sectors of the chart the way Mitchell did, but I doubt that would resolve the problem. Although, it would probably better to refer to the horizontal axis as the authority axis and the vertical as the rules axis.

As for Communism and Fascism both being "lower-right" systems, that's another useful insight from the chart. There's no "bad guy" zone on the chart where you get to dump all the political views that supported terrible evil. The same forces that gave America FDR, gave Germany Hitler.

Or to look at it another way: My position on the chart is probably close to where John C. Calhoun would have fallen (upper left, closer to upper than left). That doesn't mean I'm required to think it's OK to own slaves. Similarly, I don't think Sen. Joe Lieberman is a Nazi just because his chart position is very close to where Hitler's would have been.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

You may say, "Aha! Bush lost public support!". That would be missing the fact that he was re-elected,

... against quite possibly the weakest challenger to an incumbent President since George McGovern

with majorities of his party in both Houses of Congress for 6 of his 8 years.

without appreciably expanding either of those majorities in 2002 or 2004, and losing both spectacularly in 2006, and rendered irrelevant and impotent soon afterward.

He was not voted out, and he was not impeached.

He came very close to defeat in an election that some still believe was rigged in the right places. Hint: the state lies between Michigan and West Virginia.

As the quote above says, "bad policies can be made to work" - witness Iraq.

If the policies in Iraq work, then Barack Obama will get credit for making them work or else getting some diplomatic solution. He will deserve the credit -- much as Dwight Eisenhower gets credit for an armistice in Korea. If the policies in Afghanistan fail, then he will get about as much blame as Gerald Ford got for the fall of the Republic of Vietnam to the Commies.

If bad policies work, then they do so by pure chance.

So far, the Bush presidency has shown far more signs of the above outline than the Obama Administration has.

I see little but failure in Dubya -- in adhering to Constitutional norms (devolving power to the Vice-President is novel but not unconstitutional; devolving it to an unelected Party hack like Karl Rove is a major violation of the Separation of Powers and a precedent that, because of its dangers to democracy itself (think about it: political parties have never been accepted as repositories of power in America, but real power in the old Soviet Union lay in the Communist Party), must absolutely never be repeated unless we are to have a dictatorship.

Between 2001 and 2006 the United States was a dictatorship with Dubya as a puppet of Karl Rove and many legislators as his myrmidons. You need to recognize how Stalin wielded power without holding a State office in the Soviet Union.

With the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina, one that engendered great mistrust of Dubya in more of the country, Dubya lost what credibility he had. By 2008 the Republican campaign did everything possible to distance itself from him... and that wasn't enough. We Americans ended up voting for someone who looked like no prior President and had a funny name -- but was also a diametric opposite in style to him and as far to the Left as one could be while keeping some credibility.

Support for Obama's economic policies is very thin, even as his personal popularity (based almost entirely on his ancestry and the historic fact of his election) remains high.

Who says that such support should be anything other than "thin"? Nobody can live entirely on promises. Dubya-era failures -- the predictable result of reliance upon mercantilist economics and a speculative boom have devoured much of the wealth that America used to have.

So far Obama seems to preside over the end of the worst. Nobody reasonably expects the economy to return quickly to the level of economic activity of the early part of this decade. We can no more restore a corrupt and inequitable boom than we can expect Roger Clemens to return to baseball and be the dazzling pitcher that we once knew. We must now settle for Justin Verlander, who really has potential.

If there is an economic recovery, then most of it will result from Americans doing again what made America great -- establishing small businesses that rely upon creating good will among customers by exceeding expectations, people doing honest work for an honest day's pay, entrepreneurs investing in plant and equipment, government making investments as necessary, and innovators innovating. That is very different from an economy as perverse as the one that we knew under Dubya -- one that rewarded people well for treating others badly, that promoted loan-shark activity as the optimal means of getting profit, and that turned manufacturers into importers.

The one economic certainty of a 4T is that bad business models... die!

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Except when it comes to gay marriage, in which case you expect everyone to "Kneel Before Zod!". Pardon the implication.

The implication -- that gays and lesbians have overwhelming power, are obnoxious and arrogant, and are excessively histrionic about their differences from everyone else?

Sexual preference is not the sole measure of normality in people.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

People usually aren't ready for the 4T when it hits. You could make the case that we spent the next few years after 9/11 flailing around.

There are good arguments on both sides.

Or as on one Monty Python routine in which the Spanish Inquisition appears incongruously in modern England, an Inquisitor says,

"Nobody is ever ready for the Spanish Inquisition!"

We were indeed flailing around.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Unfortunately, any chart will have a left side and a right side and if they didn't correspond to the general notion of left-wing and right-wing, then people would be really confused. I could come up with names for the various sectors of the chart the way Mitchell did, but I doubt that would resolve the problem. Although, it would probably better to refer to the horizontal axis as the authority axis and the vertical as the rules axis.

As for Communism and Fascism both being "lower-right" systems, that's another useful insight from the chart. There's no "bad guy" zone on the chart where you get to dump all the political views that supported terrible evil. The same forces that gave America FDR, gave Germany Hitler.

Or to look at it another way: My position on the chart is probably close to where John C. Calhoun would have fallen (upper left, closer to upper than left). That doesn't mean I'm required to think it's OK to own slaves. Similarly, I don't think Sen. Joe Lieberman is a Nazi just because his chart position is very close to where Hitler's would have been.

Exactly. I am slightly below you, pretty much at the far "Left" end of the current Arc of Respectability (Mitchell's "Radical") and that would put me at the same place as who, Alexander Hamilton, maybe? That doesn't mean I'm a monarchist wannabe (though he did tell the Upper-Right Jefferson "Your people, sir, are a savage beast." or something of that nature, something I agree with...).

Originally Posted by Odin

Exactly. I am slightly below you, pretty much at the far "Left" end of the current Arc of Respectability (Mitchell's "Radical") and that would put me at the same place as who, Alexander Hamilton, maybe? That doesn't mean I'm a monarchist wannabe (though he did tell the Upper-Right Jefferson "Your people, sir, are a savage beast." or something of that nature, something I agree with...).

Jefferson was a paleoconservative? I know he favored small government and all that, but the man was the greatest advocate of his generation (at least, for a southerner) for liberty in its truest forms. He wrote the Declaration of Independence that the British called treasonous!

I'd be curious to hear some definitions for what the ideologies on this chart mean. I finally figured out some of the equivalencies...see if I have these right:

True Left = Radical (I'm thinking '60s hippies here...am I on the right track?)

True Right = Theoconservative (the hardcore Religious Right, I assume?)

Upper Left = Individualist (sorry, can't think of anyone who quite fits this description in contemporary politics, but according to Kurt's chart these people should be the "mainstream left" come the end of this 4T)

Lower Left = Progressive (easy to find an example of this, he's the President of the United States right now)

Upper Right = Paleoconservative (Pat Buchanan, John McCain, Barry Goldwater...Thomas Jefferson too???!!)

Lower Right = Neoconservative (foreign policy mega-hawks like Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al.)

True Bottom = Communitarian (is this more akin to socialism or genuine Communism? I feel like these sorts of people have been more or less invisible in recent years, as foreign to me as "Upper Left/Individualists" - and yet Kurt's chart has them in the center of the Arc of Respectability since circa 1980)

True Top = Paleolibertarian (Ron Paul and his posse)

Do I have these definitions right? So, by the end of this 4T, the Arc extends from Individualist on the mainstream left to Neoconservative on the mainstream right, with Progressive in the middle. The fringe of the fringe would be Paleoconservatives?

EDIT: Okay, I think I may now understand the "communitarian" center of the last 25 years as well as the "individualist" eccentrics. While 3Ts aren't known for being particularly group-oriented, the political consensus since the end of the 2T has mostly been in the need for an aggressive state (actively engaged foreign policy, tough on crime, family values, etc.). And would the "individualist/upper left" eccentric contingent be exemplified by the Bill Mahers of the world?

Originally Posted by Odin

Jefferson was wrong.

It's fun to research out-of-context quotes sometimes. What I learned in five minutes' looking:

• The site JPT cut-and-paste from misattributed the quote. It comes from an 1816 letter to Colnel Charles Yancey. (The 1811 letter to Duane was on a different topic altogether).
• The missing context is that Jefferson is talking about the behavior of Congressmen -- in particular as their personal opinions might relate to the opinions of the majority of the people (who they are supposed to represent).
• Another snip from the same letter: "Some of these indeed think that independence requires them to follow always their own opinion, without respect for that of others. This has never been my opinion, nor my practice, when I have been of that or any other body. Differing, on a particular question, from those whom I knew to be of the same political principles with myself, and with whom I generally thought and acted, a consciousness of the fallibility of the human mind, and of my own in particular, with a respect for the accumulated judgment of my friends, has induced me to suspect erroneous impressions in myself, to suppose my own opinion wrong, and to act with them on theirs. The want of this spirit of compromise, or of self-distrust, proudly, but falsely called independence, is what gives the federalists victories which they could never obtain, if these brethren could learn to respect the opinions of their friends more than of their enemies, and prevents many able and honest men from doing all the good they otherwise might do."

Jefferson's letters for anyone who wants to use primary sources.

Originally Posted by 1990

Jefferson was a paleoconservative? I know he favored small government and all that, but the man was the greatest advocate of his generation (at least, for a southerner) for liberty in its truest forms. He wrote the Declaration of Independence that the British called treasonous!

I think that's wrong too. Jefferson seems more True Top to me, maybe leaning Upper Left.

I'd be curious to hear some definitions for what the ideologies on this chart mean. I finally figured out some of the equivalencies...see if I have these right:

True Left = Radical (I'm thinking '60s hippies here...am I on the right track?)

True Right = Theoconservative (the hardcore Religious Right, I assume?)

Upper Left = Individualist (sorry, can't think of anyone who quite fits this description in contemporary politics, but according to Kurt's chart these people should be the "mainstream left" come the end of this 4T)

This seems right to me. The True Left, in the modern sense, would be people deeply skeptical of authority, but feel that it may be used for some good. Nader, McKinney, maybe? Individualists are very few. The Alliance of the Libertarian Left comes to mind as a radical form. Maybe some liberal feminists and other like-minded people as moderates?

Lower Left = Progressive (easy to find an example of this, he's the President of the United States right now)

Obama seems True Bottom, no?

Upper Right = Paleoconservative (Pat Buchanan, John McCain, Barry Goldwater...Thomas Jefferson too???!!)

Agreed on the first; disagree on the second and third. McCain seems Lower Right, Goldwater True Right.

Lower Right = Neoconservative (foreign policy mega-hawks like Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al.)

It's probably the mainstream view right now. Not necessarily the neocon ideology, but the neocon attitude.

True Bottom = Communitarian (is this more akin to socialism or genuine Communism? I feel like these sorts of people have been more or less invisible in recent years, as foreign to me as "Upper Left/Individualists" - and yet Kurt's chart has them in the center of the Arc of Respectability since circa 1980)

Think attitudes, not ideology. Technocrats who feel that authority is good so long as it is effective at furthering the common interest.

True Top = Paleolibertarian (Ron Paul and his posse)

Do I have these definitions right? So, by the end of this 4T, the Arc extends from Individualist on the mainstream left to Neoconservative on the mainstream right, with Progressive in the middle. The fringe of the fringe would be Paleoconservatives?

EDIT: Okay, I think I may now understand the "communitarian" center of the last 25 years as well as the "individualist" eccentrics. While 3Ts aren't known for being particularly group-oriented, the political consensus since the end of the 2T has mostly been in the need for an aggressive state (actively engaged foreign policy, tough on crime, family values, etc.). And would the "individualist/upper left" eccentric contingent be exemplified by the Bill Mahers of the world?

Maher comes across as moderate True Left to me. :/

Originally Posted by Matt1989

I think that's wrong too. Jefferson seems more True Top to me, maybe leaning Upper Left.

Yeah, Upper Left feels right. Simple rules combined with minimal deference to hierarchy = Upper Left/Individualist/classical liberalism. Definitely the rising ideology of the Enlightenment and American Revolution, decidedly confined to the fringes by the time of the authority-friendly Gilded Age, and almost extinct by WWII. But I guess it will come back with a vengeance in the next 2T, if Kurt's theory is to be believed.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Obama seems True Bottom, no?

I don't think he's in favor of bureaucracy just for its own sake, and his policies so far put him, I think, squarely within the Lower Left/progressive tradition. For him, complex rules are means to a liberal end. He's a completely typical modern American progressive as far as I can tell.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Agreed on the first; disagree on the second and third. McCain seems Lower Right, Goldwater True Right.

Could be, even if Goldwater did grow to loathe the Religious Right. McCain definitely has neocon sympathies.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

It's probably the mainstream view right now. Not necessarily the neocon ideology, but the neocon attitude.

Neocon attitude being "complex rules/strong state to accomplish pro-authority/conservative ends"?

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Think attitudes, not ideology. Technocrats who feel that authority is good so long as it is effective at furthering the common interest.

Like I said, this has manifested as a lot of things during the Culture Wars 3T, from "tough on crime" and "family values" on the domestic front to "engaged diplomacy" or intervention in foreign policy. These were clearly dominant values during the Bush 41 and Clinton presidencies, rarely being successfully questioned until Bush 43's second term.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Maher comes across as moderate True Left to me. :/

Possibly. Upper Left is generally seen as the ideology of "liberal libertarians", right? Still, Maher doesn't quite fit with Jeffersonian or Madisonian classical liberals, so you may be correct. Here's a question: where do the Federalist Founders like Hamilton and Adams fit in? Are they more Lower Left?

I've been doing some brainstorming and came up with my own predictions about the major US parties as the Crisis ends.
I don't believe technology will advance so fast that the conflict will be "Transhumanists vs. Bio-Conservatives." I do think Social Networking will make another leap.
Both parties will split in two: the Democrats for being too large, and the Republicans for being too small.
My names for the Republican parties:
The Social Libertarians, (RSL)
The American Values Party. (RAV)
My names for the Democratic parties:
The Liberal Union, (DLU)
The Progressive Network. (DPN)

The Progressive Network is the Netroots Movement aged 10 years. They attract the bulk of the Millenials. They use social networking to stay informed and active in constructing the future. They support the traditional Democrat agenda of federally funded programs and advancing minority rights.

The Liberal Union is made up of old fashioned money interrests like unions and finance. They also include established special interrest groups. They practice "Third-Way" Pragmatism. They are not adept at technology but hope to one day re-unite with the DPN (they won't).

The Social Libertarians are focused on personal freedom. They are Austrian, Supply-Side, and Anti-Keyensian economically. They conceded the battle for conservative social issues to the other parties. They want to restrict the use of technology in politics to slow down the DPN. They are also concerned with the UN and the rise of International Law.

The American Values Party champions the English Language, Christianity, and a large, expensive military. They promise "moral values" (always a vote-getter) like honesty and patriotism.

You should see how these fit on the political spectrum. The DPN is Challenge Authority-Precise RUles (Centrist). The DLU is Defer to Authority-Precise Rules (Right Wing). The RSL is Challenge Authority-Simple Rules (Left Wing). The RAV is Defer to Authority-Simple Rules (Fringe).

On another note, if you want to rename "Simple Rules," what about "Broad" or "General" Rules?

One could be, say a cheeseheaded bibliothec who styles oneself as "left-libertarian", but is a Sot-weed Stalinist (or Nicotine Neo-Con) when it comes to one soporific commodity, a theocon when it comes to a weekly (or Chriseaster) imbibing of another soporific, and a radical upon the issue of Sandwich Islander herb.

The political positions we hold are not constant. We may wish for precise rules in our computer interactions and simple rules when dealing with the Children of Men. We are usually all overt the lot, archetypes and their dark shadows are not personal in the main.

What was Jefferson when we went into debt for luxuries, when he was a traitor to his Sovereign, when he visited his slave quarters, when he sent Louis & Clark off to the Pacific, when he bought Louisiana outside the Constitution, when he edits the Word of God, when he slandered Adams, when he doubted the virility of First Nationals, when he began UVA, etc. ? No hobgoblin mind had he.

Originally Posted by Odin

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

You are making no sense here. How is this an imposition on anyone?

The Religious Right has this paranoid notion that we want to force churches to perform same-sex unions. It's total nonsense.

I think it even goes beyond that. Many on the Christian Right truly believe hat the church, or its other-religion analogs, own marriage as an institution. I think they have a point. I say, give it to them. Let the state define another legal condition that permits two consenting adults to contractually bind together and receive benefits in return. Other than 'marriage', call it whatever you wish.

If two people want the benefits and obligations of the <name to be determined later>, they go through the state process, whatever that is. If you want the union of spirits, then a religious or similar non-religious process is appropriate. If you want both, feel free to have both. Just let them be truly independent.

We already have a state defined process for managing the responsibilities of child rearing, though that probably needs a thorough review too. Note: people have and raise children without the sanction of either church or state, and we need to accept this as reality - whatever we think personally.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

One could be, say a cheeseheaded bibliothec who styles oneself as "left-libertarian", but is a Sot-weed Stalinist (or Nicotine Neo-Con)

1. "terminate" silly marijuana laws.

2. One of Rag's "sotweeds"

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

One could be, say a cheeseheaded bibliothec who styles oneself as "left-libertarian", but is a Sot-weed Stalinist (or Nicotine Neo-Con) when it comes to one soporific commodity, a theocon when it comes to a weekly (or Chriseaster) imbibing of another soporific, and a radical upon the issue of Sandwich Islander herb.

Ah, Mr. Saari -- sadly, nonalcoholic grape juice is not a soporific. Please recategorize.

Originally Posted by 1990

Jefferson was a paleoconservative? I know he favored small government and all that, but the man was the greatest advocate of his generation (at least, for a southerner) for liberty in its truest forms. He wrote the Declaration of Independence that the British called treasonous!

I'd be curious to hear some definitions for what the ideologies on this chart mean. I finally figured out some of the equivalencies...see if I have these right:

True Left = Radical (I'm thinking '60s hippies here...am I on the right track?)

True Right = Theoconservative (the hardcore Religious Right, I assume?)

Upper Left = Individualist (sorry, can't think of anyone who quite fits this description in contemporary politics, but according to Kurt's chart these people should be the "mainstream left" come the end of this 4T)

Lower Left = Progressive (easy to find an example of this, he's the President of the United States right now)

Upper Right = Paleoconservative (Pat Buchanan, John McCain, Barry Goldwater...Thomas Jefferson too???!!)

Lower Right = Neoconservative (foreign policy mega-hawks like Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al.)

True Bottom = Communitarian (is this more akin to socialism or genuine Communism? I feel like these sorts of people have been more or less invisible in recent years, as foreign to me as "Upper Left/Individualists" - and yet Kurt's chart has them in the center of the Arc of Respectability since circa 1980)

True Top = Paleolibertarian (Ron Paul and his posse)

Do I have these definitions right? So, by the end of this 4T, the Arc extends from Individualist on the mainstream left to Neoconservative on the mainstream right, with Progressive in the middle. The fringe of the fringe would be Paleoconservatives?

EDIT: Okay, I think I may now understand the "communitarian" center of the last 25 years as well as the "individualist" eccentrics. While 3Ts aren't known for being particularly group-oriented, the political consensus since the end of the 2T has mostly been in the need for an aggressive state (actively engaged foreign policy, tough on crime, family values, etc.). And would the "individualist/upper left" eccentric contingent be exemplified by the Bill Mahers of the world?

I think "Paleoconservative" is a bad label of the Upper-Right corner. because it implies that the "authority" is always conservative, which is not correct given that the pro-authority people of the 19th century considered themselves the innovators. At the end of the American Revolution that "authority" was "The People" and was associated with the support of the Jacobins in the French Revolution.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the ideological currents of 1790...

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Ah, Mr. Saari -- sadly, nonalcoholic grape juice is not a soporific. Please recategorize.

No I shan't. It is a soporific in that it puts a portion of your depravity to slumber; either you are so near to perfection (a good egg, if you will) that you don't notice the lethargy of the wickedness within or you are so unregenerate that the dent to the evil portion of the librarian is so slight that you feel it to be robust as ever even when it is abed.

You might ask the S.O. or the spawn which is the case.

Originally Posted by Odin

The Religious Right has this paranoid notion that we want to force churches to perform same-sex unions.

Add to that a belief that the Gay movement wishes to force churches to put gay pastors in the pulpit - regardless of the wishes of the congregations in question.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

No I shan't. It is a soporific in that it puts a portion of your depravity to slumber; either you are so near to perfection (a good egg, if you will) that you don't notice the lethargy of the wickedness within or you are so unregenerate that the dent to the evil portion of the librarian is so slight that you feel it to be robust as ever even when it is abed.

You might ask the S.O. or the spawn which is the case.

Hold on. Are you saying that the purpose of Holy Communion is to induce numbness, however major or slight, to inner wickedness?