Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Regarding Rick Perry--some years ago a story circulated that his wife had left him termporarily after finding him in bed with a guy. I googled and found plenty of references to this rumor in general although nothing as specific as I remembered. Major sites have discussed this quite recently. It does seem as though a lot of our politicians and mega-ministers who do so much praying have a lot to pray about, from their perspective, that is. . . .

IMO Religion is more often than not a cover for a person's own flaws and repressions. Us non-religious folks don't have a "savior" to "wash away our sins" and so we actually have to confront our faults. The "Born Again" will "Be redeemed by Jesus" and is thus free to be a jerk as much as he/she likes.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

That is unlikely to be reversed. The valid achievements of society (among which include technological advances) get little tested. A prime example: the TR-era progressive reforms, direct election of US Senators, and a women's right to vote were not challenged. Sure, there are some crackpots who believe that bans on child labor compromise the "right to contract" that Big Business supposedly needs for maximal 'freedom'. (Don't fool yourself -- conflicts between freedoms exist).

The only way in which desegregation of schools would be reversed is if America underwent a racist revolution of the sort that Germany underwent in its last completed Crisis... with a false Regeneracy that leads to a calamity similar to that that Germany experienced in 1945. I don't see that happening here. It's the bad stuff that gets smashed, and I can most likely see most of the worst features of modern American life -- most of which came into existence in the mid-1960s or later -- being cast off.

I predict that we will rely less on overpriced university educations of suspect value and more upon trade schools to prepare people for adulthood, and that 'college education' will be more classicist in its effort to uplift the Best and Brightest. We are also likely to refocus the economy as a whole away from the devouring of natural resources. Of "Sex & Drugs & Rock-n-Roll"... sex will be unavoidable, drugs will be demonized even more fully, and popular culture will be sanitized. That's much what happened in the 1930s and early 1940s with sex, drugs, and jazz.

Your most likely correct but I guess I don't put much past some politicians on the extreme right these days. Because of that mistrust, I was wondering if their push for vouchers could be a stealth way of segregrating to some degree. I googled vouchers and privatizing education. Here's the result.


Pennsylvania school voucher push is about privatization, not education

by Laura Clawson for Daily Kos Labor

School privatization via vouchers has been one of the big right-wing pushes in Pennsylvania this year. The legislature is on recess for the summer, but voucher advocates are not giving up on the idea, despite a study finding that, across multiple other studies, there's "no clear, positive impact on student academic achievement" from voucher programs.

There's a reason they won't give up easily: For their fiercest advocates, school vouchers aren't about educational outcomes. They're about getting the government out of education:

Vouchers are funded with public school dollars but are used to pay for students to attend private and parochial (religious-affiliated) schools. The idea was introduced in the 1950s by the high priest of free-market fundamentalism, Milton Friedman, who also made the real goal of the voucher movement clear: “Vouchers are not an end in themselves; they are a means to make a transition from a government to a free-market system." The quote is in a 1995 Cato Institute briefing paper titled “Public Schools: Make Them Private.”

Joseph Bast, president of Heartland Institute, stated in 1997, “Like most other conservatives and libertarians, we see vouchers as a major step toward the complete privatization of schooling. In fact, after careful study, we have come to the conclusion that they are the only way to dismantle the current socialist regime.” Bast added, “Government schools will diminish in enrollment and thus in number as parents shift their loyalty and vouchers to superior-performing private schools.

More: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...-not-education

The article made me feel very uneasy. I'd like to read your perspective on this.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Your most likely correct but I guess I don't put much past some politicians on the extreme right these days. Because of that mistrust, I was wondering if their push for vouchers could be a stealth way of segregrating to some degree. I googled vouchers and privatizing education. Here's the result.


Pennsylvania school voucher push is about privatization, not education

More: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...-not-education

The article made me feel very uneasy. I'd like to read your perspective on this.

1. If vouchers are used to establish private schools in resistance to court-mandated desegregation, then their purpose is obvious. Such would be one of the most blatant misuses of public school funds.

2. Even more insidious may be an effort to get public support for schooling that pushes some political agenda. Such could promote ideas popular in some circles but otherwise harmful to students. I would ask whether some conservative would like "Che Guevara Charter School" to come into existence. That is my retort to Creationism and trickle-down economics.

3. Ideally, schools are "advertising-free zones". Imagine a charter school getting blatant commercial sponsorship; it will be tempting because it might be tempting to get a little extra revenue by naming the school after some corporation or its products (as in McDonald's Happy Meals School). Or, perhaps, the math textbooks promote certain forms of consumer behavior. "Bob finds the same brand and style of watch at Wal-Mart that he also finds at Mom-and-Pop Jewelers. It is $46.95 at Wal-Mart and $74.00 at Mom-and-Pop Jewelers. How much does he save by buying the watch at Wal-Mart?"

4. There is no financial edge. Any private organization is likely to fill with cronies of the owners. As it is, public schools have the lowest level of bureaucracy to direct providers of education (basically teachers and teachers' aides) possible. Would more bureaucracy make teaching better?

Coincidence? Someone sent me a youtube video this evening about how the Koch brothers want to destroy public education.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mbJh...ature=youtu.be

Originally Posted by Galen

This has happened before but it is clear that you aren't familiar with what is now called the Old Right from before the Second World War and the Cold War. It was much closer to what is now called libertarian than has been seen from either major party since. The GOP will go where is members want to and Ron Paul is doing much better this time around. It should be obvious to anyone with a clue that the trends that have been in place for about the last half century are reaching their end. It seems unreasonable to expect both major parties to remain as they are during a fourth turning.

In a time of crisis I would expect people in general to turn away from the positions that the Republicans and Democrats have been holding for decades now in favor of a long standing but minority position in each party. In the case of the Republican Party we have the rise of the Tea Party and Ron Paul which took first and second in the recent Iowa Straw poll. This could signal the beginning of a shift in the membership of the Republican party in a more libertarian direction over the objections of the current establishment. So far I am unable to see any signal of a similar shift in the Democratic party which seems odd since that usually indicates an organization that may be unable to evolve, which would be bad for the Democratic party in the long run.

The shift in the 4T will not be libertarian. That is a holdover from the 3T. Ron Paul can do well in straw polls and at conventions; in national polls he is still down. He may be the most relevant candidate in the Republican Party (which isn't saying much from my point of view), and he has some good ideas that are out of the establishment mainstream, but the libertarians will need a new leader soon (his son maybe). In any event, the increasing problems will call for government action, which is not what libertarians offer. Large-scale crises cannot be solved by individuals or without governments. As for the Tea Party, except for their ruthlessness, they are strictly business-as-usual.

The shift among Democrats will come partly from the netroots, and we already see it with such organizations as roots action and moveon and progressive democrats. But that doesn't mean there will be a credible candidate other than the incumbent this time around. There may not be.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

1. If vouchers are used to establish private schools in resistance to court-mandated desegregation, then their purpose is obvious. Such would be one of the most blatant misuses of public school funds.

2. Even more insidious may be an effort to get public support for schooling that pushes some political agenda. Such could promote ideas popular in some circles but otherwise harmful to students. I would ask whether some conservative would like "Che Guevara Charter School" to come into existence. That is my retort to Creationism and trickle-down economics.

3. Ideally, schools are "advertising-free zones". Imagine a charter school getting blatant commercial sponsorship; it will be tempting because it might be tempting to get a little extra revenue by naming the school after some corporation or its products (as in McDonald's Happy Meals School). Or, perhaps, the math textbooks promote certain forms of consumer behavior. "Bob finds the same brand and style of watch at Wal-Mart that he also finds at Mom-and-Pop Jewelers. It is $46.95 at Wal-Mart and $74.00 at Mom-and-Pop Jewelers. How much does he save by buying the watch at Wal-Mart?"

4. There is no financial edge. Any private organization is likely to fill with cronies of the owners. As it is, public schools have the lowest level of bureaucracy to direct providers of education (basically teachers and teachers' aides) possible. Would more bureaucracy make teaching better?

What is happening, and the possibility of what could happen, is something I've never experienced in my life time. I'm concerned that considering all of these crucial issues, this could very well be a very volatile campaign season. sigh

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The shift in the 4T will not be libertarian. That is a holdover from the 3T. Ron Paul can do well in straw polls and at conventions; in national polls he is still down. He may be the most relevant candidate in the Republican Party (which isn't saying much from my point of view), and he has some good ideas that are out of the establishment mainstream, but the libertarians will need a new leader soon (his son maybe). In any event, the increasing problems will call for government action, which is not what libertarians offer. Large-scale crises cannot be solved by individuals or without governments. As for the Tea Party, except for their ruthlessness, they are strictly business-as-usual.

The shift among Democrats will come partly from the netroots, and we already see it with such organizations as roots action and moveon and progressive democrats. But that doesn't mean there will be a credible candidate other than the incumbent this time around. There may not be.

IMO during the 2012 election cycle the progressives should focus on electing their allies to everything below the White House. As much as I wish it were otherwise the executive branch is at best going to be neutral on major issues until at least until the 2016 election. Any pressure for a better future is going to have to literally come from the bottom up.

But isn't that always the case in the end?

Originally Posted by Deb C

Coincidence? Someone sent me a youtube video this evening about how the Koch brothers want to destroy public education.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mbJh...ature=youtu.be

I had no idea that any powerful interests now seek to re-segregate school systems. Magnet schools are one of the most effective means of desegregating school systems. It might be that the high schools that specialize in the academically-gifted attract the most diversity these days.

On the whole, today's youth do a very good job of coping with cultural and ethnic diversity. They do well, despite having never known Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., at judging people by the content of their character than by the color of their skin. That's not to say that Millennial youth don't judge people by their character.

I don't want to read too much into this story. I find it hard to believe that the Koch Brothers are as racist as they are reactionary or that they have a sinister desire and plot to create ethnic, racial, or religious divides as wedges against democracy. But I can also understand the idea that if intelligent white kids meet intelligent Asian, Latin-American, and black youth who can eloquently make the case that liberal ideals are not only benign but desirable to and for white youth, then such might be contrary to the ultimate objectives of the Koch Brothers and their front groups. Racism is not only ugly but dangerous. We have seen what ethnic divides can do in Yugoslavia when ruthless demagogues stir up hatred for their own power plays.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

IMO during the 2012 election cycle the progressives should focus on electing their allies to everything below the White House. As much as I wish it were otherwise the executive branch is at best going to be neutral on major issues until at least until the 2016 election. Any pressure for a better future is going to have to literally come from the bottom up.

But isn't that always the case in the end?

It is. People who elected President Obama thought that he could change everything important in need of change all by himself. The problem: Congress matters just as much as does the President. The Hard Right well knows that and set up its own pseudo-populist fronts that had such glittering generalities as "Club for Growth", "Freedom Works". and "Americans for Prosperity". What those groups never said to the public was whose growth, whose freedom, and whose prosperity they meant. Let the organizers of those groups take from us any possibility of growth, freedom, and prosperity, and we generally will dislike the results.

President Obama was extremely effective in the first two years of his Presidency. Now about the only way in which he gets to sign a bill is on a trivial matter (like naming a highway) or if he gives the Republicans far more of what they want than what Democrats get. I can't imagine any other Democrat achieving anything with the extremists in Congress blocking anything that the Hard Right doesn't want.

I concede here that as hollow and shallow as Rick Perry is, he would get much done should he be elected and the GOP/Tea Party/John Birch Society hold the House and gain the Senate. Almost everything would be unjust and foolish -- but under the terms of the Koch Brother it would be very satisfying. Maybe America would become the Christian and Corporate State (basically something much like Iran except that it would be Fundamentalist-Protestant instead of Shi'ite Muslim).

Moral suasion no longer works in a polarized political system. The likes of Mark Hatfield, Jacob Javits, Hugh Scott, and Gerald Ford are gone. The Republican Party has people like Saxby Chambliss as the norm.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I was fascinated by the tremendous response Ron Paul got the other night to his attacks on US foreign policy. Something big may be happening about that. . .

I am inclined to agree with you for one simple reason. His message has not changed since he first became a representative in the seventies. That his message should gain traction now indicates that perhaps the world has changed since the man hasn't. I wouldn't have brought this up except that it indicates a shift of outlook occurring in the younger Republican party members.

Three things have to happen during this Crisis in order for it to end and a period of stability follow. We have to adopt policies which narrow income gaps and allow the re-emergence of the American middle class. We have to achieve a sustainable basis for prosperity in terms of natural resources. And we have to step back from our imperial commitments taken on during and since the Cold War. Although I didn't see or read about Paul's speech, that last is probably what he was addressing, since he has always taken a position against Imperial America. It's one of the few points where he and I agree.

One shouldn't read too much into it, though, in terms of support for Paul himself. The rest of his message still falls on deaf ears for the most part.

The reason we have to do these things is because until we do, we will continue to have a sputtering economy and rising hostility from much of the rest of the world, and high tensions and domestic unrest as a consequence. A nation under those conditions is not in a First Turning. So that part of Ron Paul's agenda will have to be met; we simply cannot continue as a superpower, partly for financial reasons but mostly because the rest of the world will not suffer it and we are not strong enough to assert that status by force.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Regarding Rick Perry--some years ago a story circulated that his wife had left him termporarily after finding him in bed with a guy. I googled and found plenty of references to this rumor in general although nothing as specific as I remembered. Major sites have discussed this quite recently. It does seem as though a lot of our politicians and mega-ministers who do so much praying have a lot to pray about, from their perspective, that is. . . .

More queer-bashing? Seriously?

You do realize that this is the kind of thing that reflects worse on the person doing it than on the alleged-faggot?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

More queer-bashing? Seriously?You do realize that this is the kind of thing that reflects worse on the person doing it than on the alleged-faggot?

I don't see this as gay bashing at all. I see it as hypocrit bashing. Now, you can argue that hypocrits shouldn't be bashed either, but, unlike sexual proclivity, being a hypocrit really is a personal choice.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

More queer-bashing? Seriously?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Regarding Rick Perry--some years ago a story circulated that his wife had left him termporarily after finding him in bed with a guy. I googled and found plenty of references to this rumor in general although nothing as specific as I remembered. Major sites have discussed this quite recently. It does seem as though a lot of our politicians and mega-ministers who do so much praying have a lot to pray about, from their perspective, that is. . . .

You do realize that this is the kind of thing that reflects worse on the person doing it than on the alleged-faggot?

...well, based on this bit of Freudian psycho-babble:

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

More and more, I find that when interpreting books, movies, people, or events, it's very important to keep Freud's principle of dream interpretation in mind: the thing that you can't understand, that doesn't seem to fit, is the key to the meaning.

Like--why is Michelle Bachmann, who whatever her other problems seems a genuinely warm person, so obsessed with homosexuality (she said Satan coined the word "gay" to disguise that homosexuality is a form of bondage and slavery) and gay marriage?

I learned last night that there is a theory about this circulating among journalists on her campaign, and this morning google revealed that there's a good deal of buzz about this theory out there, and that Jon Stewart has discussed this openly.

I will be very interested to see if there are any new developments.

...what does His Imperial Hohenzollern Majesty's fascination for the rumored sexual proclivity of his political opponents reveal?

Does this mean that, deep down, that he actually is queer as a $3 bill himself?

Does this mean that he's actaully covering up for his intense hatred and fear of homosexuals by making an exaggerated show of his tolerance?

Hmmm...

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

...So even if Texas does grab some jobs from the rust belt and the coastal states with higher labor costs and more unionism, it comes at some cost to the middle/working class laborer as a whole on the national scale. So basically, the success of Texas and other lower-wage, right-to-work states is basically symbolic of the race to the bottom for labor in this country.

False:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...tage-Perry.htm

...since the recession ended in June 2009, Texas has added 298,600 jobs, accounting for 52% of U.S. net job growth.

A recent USA Today report noted that while the energy boom has helped Texas as well, employment growth has been "broad-based," with gains in sectors including education, health care, leisure, and professional and business services.

Texas' jobless rate has been consistently below the national average, peaking at 8.3%. The national average topped out at 10.1%...

In 2010, Texas' economy grew 5.3%... The overall U.S. economy, in contrast, grew 3.8%.

...the average wage for employees in Texas rose 7.4% between May 2008 and May 2010... For the nation as a whole, average wages climbed 5%.

...Texas is also experiencing a population boom, as people flock there for job opportunities... Texas was by far the top destination for people moving in the country, with a net gain of half a million migrants between 2004 and 2008. The vast majority came from other states.


As usual, the race to the bottom is in places where ability is punished and sloth rewarded.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I don't see this as gay bashing at all. I see it as hypocrit bashing. Now, you can argue that hypocrits shouldn't be bashed either, but, unlike sexual proclivity, being a hypocrit really is a personal choice.

Awesome response to one of the more-prolific of the sanctimonious hysterical stalkers club.

Originally Posted by JDG 66;387227False:

[URL

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/581393/201108121903/In-Texas-Match-Up-With-The-President-Its-Advantage-Perry.htm[/URL]

...since the recession ended in June 2009, Texas has added 298,600 jobs, accounting for 52% of U.S. net job growth.

A recent USA Today report noted that while the energy boom has helped Texas as well, employment growth has been "broad-based," with gains in sectors including education, health care, leisure, and professional and business services.

Texas' jobless rate has been consistently below the national average, peaking at 8.3%. The national average topped out at 10.1%...

In 2010, Texas' economy grew 5.3%... The overall U.S. economy, in contrast, grew 3.8%.

...the average wage for employees in Texas rose 7.4% between May 2008 and May 2010... For the nation as a whole, average wages climbed 5%.

...Texas is also experiencing a population boom, as people flock there for job opportunities... Texas was by far the top destination for people moving in the country, with a net gain of half a million migrants between 2004 and 2008. The vast majority came from other states.


As usual, the race to the bottom is in places where ability is punished and sloth rewarded.

Gad, you are an idiot. Never, ever doing a lick of your own analysis. Just spewing out the latest right wing nut line fed to you without a moment of critical thought.

Here's a comparison you never thought to consider -



Yep, TX is doing a little worst than my state and that Liberal stronghold of Massachusetts!

When you compare TX to the national average you are comparing it to the states of CA, FL and NV where there was a huge housing bubble collapse. TX didn't have the housing bubble collapse for two reasons. First, they suffered greatly back during the S&L crises and put in heavy-duty Liberal regulatory policies to prevent real estate speculation and mortgage shenanigans (let's see if Perry every mentions that fact). Second, the housing speculation bubble took place where there is a premium on land (i.e. CA, FL, Las Vegas area); if you've been to TX, you can understand why a land bubble is very unlikely, and why it is dirt cheap to locate a business in Texas or to buy a home.

Yes, they are adding jobs faster than other states; that's what happens when your population grows faster than other states. That isn't some miracle; it’s that with more people someone can start up another roach coach and sell papusas to the expanding population, numbskull.

And that is exactly the type of minimal income jobs TX is adding. Some 550,000 workers last year were paid at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25, more than double the number making minimum or below wages in 2008. That's 9.5% of Texas' hourly workforce, which gives it the highest percentage of minimum-wage hourly workers in the nation -- a dubious title it shares with Mississippi. It shares last place with Mississippi on a number of fronts: percentage of workers with health insurance and retirement plans; literacy rates; student to teacher ratios; ect.

A TX motto is - "Like Mississippi, only bigger!"

What TX is doing is stealing jobs from other states with its cheap land, low wages, low-investment in its mediocre educational system, and lack of social safety nets. It is not providing any net job gains vis-a-vis the rest of the world. It is a classic race to the bottom for 90% of Americans, who, like yourself, are too dumb to realize what is happening.

I hear they serve freedom fries though.

Originally Posted by Galen

I am inclined to agree with you for one simple reason. His message has not changed since he first became a representative in the seventies. That his message should gain traction now indicates that perhaps the world has changed since the man hasn't. I wouldn't have brought this up except that it indicates a shift of outlook occurring in the younger Republican party members.

Every 4T in American history has implied the strengthening of government, and not its weakening. Libertarianism may gain in appeal during a 3T. but it invariably fails once the war-whoops begin and when people vote to have the government do what it can to resolve the severe inequalities and offset the distress of economic collapse. Remember: a 3T is a time of neglect and depravity, a time in which everyone is out for himself in a race for the bottom and when people seek out leaders (Pierce, Fillmore, Buchanan, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Dubya) who promise little more than to get out of the way of the alleged progress of the 3T. To be sure, government can get repressive toward pariahs; witness the harsh and effective crackdown upon the Mafia thugs and Dillinger/Bonnie-and-Clyde types in the 1930s.

People want the sort of government that they perceive most likely to make life best for them. Once speculative booms fail as they did in 1930 or 2008, people want the government to impose integrity and caution that people recently thought go in the way of the profits of the speculative boom. 3T leadership that looked the other way when economic institutions failed suddenly looks inexcusably awful.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Every 4T in American history has implied the strengthening of government, and not its weakening...

-You are over-extrapolating from the WWII 4T. The goverment we had at the end of the AWI 4T had less power, not more. Same for ACW 4T.

Article:
http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-vision-...092200081.html

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-You are over-extrapolating from the WWII 4T. The goverment we had at the end of the AWI 4T had less power, not more. Same for ACW 4T.

The US government did not exist in 1775, but the US Constitution clearly establishes some powers that the Federal Government did not then have -- such as the right to print money and do diplomacy as the States did before then and as the States were precluded from doing afterwards, the ability to assume all debts of the States related to the Revolution, the ability to issue patents and copyrights, and of course effective prohibitions of the States establishing any religion. It even abolished the importation of slaves.

Abraham Lincoln got powers that no prior President had ever had -- and he needed every one of those. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments abolished slavery without compensation to former owners, effectively prohibited States from violating the Bill Of Rights (effectively preventing the States from becoming dictatorial police states ), and establishing that former slaves were now citizens with full civil rights (on paper, that is).

To be sure, government power over the economy increases in any war and diminishes soon after the close of hostilities (well, the trend applied after World War II until Stalin decided that 'freedom' meant absolute power for Communists where such was possible, as in Czechoslovakia, but then came the Cold War) because military expenditures become a huge chunk of the economy in wartime. But government power isn't only economic. Think of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which served as the 'legislation appropriate for enforcing the terms of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments' that had never been enacted.

By the way -- do you have any problems with the GI Bill of Rights, the Marshall Plan, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Stronger government that improves people's lives or enhances national security without trampling upon civil liberties seems good to me. It could be that the Marshall Plan prevented any possibility of World War III with the Soviet Union. As for another reality -- the downfall of Communism -- don't you recognize that post-Commie governments had to be strong enough to sell off the government owned-and-operated economies and establishing new rules for business?

It is possible to have weak government and much repression. Take a look at medieval feudalism in which a King's authority went no further than the national capital and no farther than his personal domains. The lord of the Manor had all power over a serf -- perhaps even to the ius primae noctis. Take a look at a plantation in which the slave master had the right to whip his slaves and break up slave families as the master deemed fit. A slave woman or girl could be raped at almost any time by the owner or a male member of the family. Slave states had no power to regulate slavery, and the slave-owners who dominated the slave states liked it that way and so legislated. Take a look at some of the parts of Columbia in which drug lords are the real power and the government in Bogota has no real power. Then look at Somalia -- as Freedom House did -- and note that the whole of Somalia is considered "Not Free" even though one can get away with just about any economic activity there -- even piracy. Freedom House treats the 'socialist nightmares' of Scandinavia in the "Free" category even if the governments there have more extensive control of economic relationships than does China.

It costs far less to raid an underground newspaper, shoot the staff, smash the presses, burn the 'illegal' sheets of news, and lock up the building than it does to establish a welfare clinic for the local indigents in poor health. But which is tyranny and which is strong and effective government?

Originally Posted by millennialX

Article:
http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-vision-...092200081.html

I wouldn't call it a vision problem as much as a listening to the wrong people problem. You listen to your base, not the Republican talking heads or those who have once been loyal to Wall Street.

Not to mention that negotiating and trying to compromise with politicians who have a two year old mentality is ludicrous. After awhile you start wondering who's in charge and whose the adult in the room. Even we lowly citizens know that trying to compromise with insanity is insane in and of itself. His presidency turned into a question of which speed should we drive off this cliff, instead of a strong message that declared that he would not drive off that cliff. He wouldn't call their bluff. Makes me wonder where he got his lawyer degree.

Sorry for the rant but he has been a huge dissapointment.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-You are over-extrapolating from the WWII 4T. The goverment we had at the end of the AWI 4T had less power, not more. Same for ACW 4T.

I would actually be interested in having you flesh this out a bit more.

For example, the final form of government after the revolution followed the Articles of Confederation, a failed, weaker government attempt. And PB is right, you would have to compare and contrast our initial federal government with Great Britain or something like that.

In the ACW case, the Union had certainly demonstrated its ability to hold the country together, however messy that turned out to be. That's a LOT stronger, that what was in place before it seems to me.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Every 4T in American history has implied the strengthening of government, and not its weakening. Libertarianism may gain in appeal during a 3T. but it invariably fails once the war-whoops begin and when people vote to have the government do what it can to resolve the severe inequalities and offset the distress of economic collapse. Remember: a 3T is a time of neglect and depravity, a time in which everyone is out for himself in a race for the bottom and when people seek out leaders (Pierce, Fillmore, Buchanan, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Dubya) who promise little more than to get out of the way of the alleged progress of the 3T. To be sure, government can get repressive toward pariahs; witness the harsh and effective crackdown upon the Mafia thugs and Dillinger/Bonnie-and-Clyde types in the 1930s.

People want the sort of government that they perceive most likely to make life best for them. Once speculative booms fail as they did in 1930 or 2008, people want the government to impose integrity and caution that people recently thought go in the way of the profits of the speculative boom. 3T leadership that looked the other way when economic institutions failed suddenly looks inexcusably awful.

As I have said before, I do not agree about the Civil War. Yes, to fight the war, both sides had to mobilize unprecedented power and issue reams of paper money. (They did, however, do without a draft for a surprisingly long time). And the Radical Republicans tried to impose a new form of life on the South--but they couldn't. By 1877 when Reconstruction ended the federal government and state governments were very weak. That is not an anachronistic judgment on my part. Lots of observers, particularly Transcendentals, were appalled by the power of the new corporations and the corruption of the government. The Gilded, like today's Gen X, who are now coming to the fore, had no faith in institutions. This was a completely different outcome from the last 4T and it looks to me to be far more similar to what we are going to experience this time--or should I say, what we have experienced?

Essay I ran into.

It’s midnight in America. Brenda can’t sleep. Even with the reclining seat of her old Toyota pushed all the way back, a car makes a cramped, uncomfortable bed. It’s hot with the windows rolled up. Sweat trickles down her neck and pools on her chest and stomach. She could roll down the windows to let in a cooling breeze, but then the mosquitoes would get her. And maybe something worse than mosquitoes. Footsteps on the pavement startle her awake again and again. What if a strange man notices her sleeping in her car? Three miles away, her home sits vacant. She realizes now that she qualified for a fixed rate loan, but the officer at the bank told her she had to take an adjustable mortgage, instead. After sinking her savings into her house, she is homeless. It will take her months to save up enough for deposit and first and last months rent for a tiny apartment. Until then, she will sleep---try to sleep in her car.

It’s midnight in America. Joe can’t sleep. He breathes OK when he is sitting up, but when he tries to lie down, fluid fills his lungs, choking him. Joe got laid off from his job, because his doctor said he could not stand on his feet all day. It was bad for his heart. His unemployment insurance just about covers his rent and food, but there is nothing left over for his heart medications. Three of them are generics. He gets them at Kroger for twelve dollars a month. The other two are still under patent, and they would cost him $250 a month, if he had $250 a month after his bills were paid. Each night, he struggles to breathe. Once he finally gets to sleep, he wakes up with chest pain. He used to use cheap nitroglycerine tablets, but there is a nationwide shortage of generics like nitroglycerine, and he can not afford the more expensive brand name versions. So he lies in bed, propped up on three pillows, staring at the ceiling, willing the pain to subside. Dawn is a long time coming.

It’s midnight in America. For the third time this week, Janelle has gone to bed hungry. She planned ahead for her retirement. Social Security would bring in $1200 a month. The private pension from the factory where she worked forty-five years would add an additional $1000. Then, her employer declared bankruptcy and sold the firm to another company that kept the plant going but refused to honor pension agreements. The owner of her company was hired by the new firm. He has great benefits and a hefty salary. He eats steak at least three times a week. Janelle gets by on cereal and milk and occasional tins of cat food. Tonight, there was no food in the house. Nothing. She drank a couple of big glasses of water and went to bed early, but sleep eludes her. Around midnight, hunger drives her from her bed. She pulls on a robe and creeps out the front door. Tomorrow is garbage day. The neighbors’ trashcans are on the street. She pulls open a lid and begins to rummage. There’s a cold slice of pizza left in the box. The cheese is congealed and the crust rock hard. She wolfs it down. It tastes so good.

It’s midnight in America. Justin’s feet ache from walking miles, trying to find a tech job to replace the one that was moved to India. He still has internet service, though he has turned off the cable and the air conditioner and he only keeps the phone because he needs some way for potential employers to get in touch with him. His face looks ghostly in the light from his monitor. His brow wrinkles as he reads yet another tech ad that specifies “Must be currently employed.” He recalls how competitors used to try to hire him away from his old firm. Maybe if he had taken one of them up on their offer, he would still have a job. But he stayed out of a sense of loyalty. It didn’t seem right to leave the company that trained him in the lurch.

It is midnight in America. Brian is cleaning his gun. He has a constitutionally protected right to own a firearm, but he has no right to treatment for his bipolar disorder. Right now, he is in one of his down phases. The medications that would help him cost more than his family’s total food bill each month, and to get those, he would have to see a psychiatrist and pay him $125 a visit. He has been down to the local MHMR, but they have a waiting list. When asked during the bright light of day if he was planning to hurt himself, he answered truthfully “No. I couldn’t do that to my kids.” But it is midnight now. The kids are asleep. He is alone with a bottle of whiskey and a handgun. The whiskey numbs the pain, briefly, and it is a lot cheaper than health care. He stares down the barrel of his gun. A bullet is even cheaper than whiskey, and it’s a lot more permanent. He holds the gun to his head. His finger hesitates on the trigger. Will it hurt? Another swallow of whiskey bolsters his courage…

Dear Mr. President. I know you wanted to emulate Ronald Reagan. I know you were planning to run your own version of “Morning in America” as part of your re-election campaign.

But this isn’t morning in America. This is one of the darkest hours our country has known in a long time. Yes, I know that the poor, the sick, the homeless, the unemployed, the desperate are hurting your re-election chances. I know that your supporters want us to all shut up or face something even worse next fall. But some of us won’t make it to next fall. Some of us won’t make it through the night.

But I'm sure all those people are lazy slackers who refuse to get a job! Let them rot! *SARCASM*

Every person that thinks the poor are lazy or in some other way "deserve" their poverty can go straight to Hell.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The Gilded, like today's Gen X, who are now coming to the fore, had no faith in institutions. This was a completely different outcome from the last 4T and it looks to me to be far more similar to what we are going to experience this time--or should I say, what we have experienced?

No, you shouldn't say that...
But maybe that's how things will turn out this time. The anti-institutional (mainly anti-government this time) mood is stronger than the last cycle. It could mean the double rhythm. The fight is not over though by a long shot. You can be sure the great divide is coming up, not already over.

Plus, according to Strauss and Howe, FWIW, there were no institution-loving civic generations around in 1865-86. Now there are.