Adds to my belief that the GOP might take everything in 2012 and, if they do, lead us down a path that has the nation in a Democratic revolt come 2014 or 2016. That, IMO, would signal the beginning of the end of the 4T.Originally Posted by Hutch74
That's looks pretty valid from where I'm sittin. What do you mean by revolt though? Like rioting or just gaining seats and the presidency through the election process?
Well, when I said "Democratic revolt" I meant at a "revolt" the ballot box. (And would be whether I used a capital D or a small d). I think if the GOP takes it all in 2012 we'll go further down the road of corporate ownership and domination of everything, continued malaise and regression for the middle class and continued increase in the concentration of wealth. And if that didn't cause the people to finally stand up to the Tea Party by '14, I would bet it almost certainly would by '16.
This is roughly what happened after the panic of 1873, although it took three more elections for the Democrats to regain the White House (the 1876 election was stolen and the 1880 one was very close.) But the point is, these big electoral swings had no impact on anything that was happening, and the same, I'm inclined to believe, will be the case this time.
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
That's a good question; he's hard to assail. Then again, the Right only started to really gain after they exocised FDR's ghost. Reagan had been an FDR Democrat. He was credible as a detractor. Maybe the Left needs to start wooing New Right apostates like Bruce Bartlett and Fareed Zakaria. Converts know ther old friends best.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
I tend to view the resolution of the 1876 election -- effectively the end of Reconstruction -- as the end of the Civil War-era 4T. And since we're talking about what elections *might* start drawing this 4T to a close, it seems rather interesting to me to see how this may parallel that situation.
I think moving forward, if my "prediction" (basically just a gut feeling) comes true, it would signal that the end of the 4T is in sight -- whether it merely stops the bleeding for Middle America and stabilizes us to a "new normal" of reduced expectations or a revival of the middle class and the resurgence of labor to regain lost ground remains to be seen, much of it would depend on whether the Democratic Party was still mostly under the thumb of Wall Street and Corporate America.
I don't know for sure -- but perhaps the better question is, is it really *necessary* to do so in order to persuade the masses that *today*, in this day and age, "trickle down" is utterly failing to trickle down? I'm not sure.
I see a lot of similarities (in the opposite direction) between Reagan and FDR. Both put in rather significant changes to our economy in response to a horrible economy and high unemployment. And let's be honest -- to the masses, looking at the 1979-81 economy and the 1982-88 economy, it appeared that Reaganomics worked. This likely created a cohort of loyal converts to the supply-sider cause. Yes, there were certainly other explanations; for one, the cyclical nature of the economy helped (as it helped Clinton) since we were due for a recovery early in the presidency. And it might even be possible that a jolt of "lower taxes" (for a short time) may have helped reduce the malaise... but wasn't feasible as a permanent solution, just as increased spending in a recession would be. In other words, it might have helped jump start the economy (I know that supposition will get a lot of grief on this board) but should not have been implemented as permanent policy.
I don't think you *need* to attack Reagan to show that supply side theory is failing today. The theory is, simply put, that the more you leave in the pockets of the rich and the corporations (euphemistically called "achievers" and "job creators" by the True Believers), the more it will "trickle down" to us in the form of more jobs and higher wages. Again, this felt to many as if it happened in the 1980s. But no one can say today, with a straight face, that "trickle down" is resulting in more jobs and higher wages. No, jobs are being slashed, real wages have been falling for years while corporations post record profits, sit on record amounts of cash, and the wealth gap between the elites and the non-elites is the highest in many decades.
As mentioned above, some young New Dealers became Reaganites in their old age -- why can't former Reaganites come to realize that supply side theory as a permanent economic structure has been thoroughly discredited in the last decade or two? FDR's America wasn't sustainable long-term, IMO, and neither was Reagan's. We shouldn't get locked into One True Way because circumstances and situations change, and what works in one situation may not work in another situation. I think New Deal economics made some sense in the 1930s and would make some sense today (particularly in the area of infrastructure refresh), but not for the malaise of 1980.
Last edited by ziggyX65; 08-30-2011 at 10:50 AM.
What comment?
James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton
I don't get you people. Do you actually think Americans will retain the right to vote if the GOP takes it ALL in 2012?
Yes. Am I saying that there won't be some "stealth disenfranchisement" going on (gerrymandering, elimination of non-English ballots, et cetera)? No. But that won't change everyone's right to vote. Frankly I have no use for today's GOP, but my God, some people are talking about them as if they are Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot rolled into one. They are bad, but not THAT bad. I still remember all the hysteria about people saying Bush wouldn't peacefully leave office on January 20, 2009, that he'd use some "national security" excuse to suspend the Constitution and stay in office.
Last edited by ziggyX65; 08-30-2011 at 11:42 AM.
Georgia picked up another Congressional seat in the 2010 census. Because of the Voting Rights Act, all reapportionment must be approved by the Justice Department so nothing is final, but I looked at the new maps. I live in the city of Atlanta which is a small part of whole metro area and is about 55% African-American. In previous reapportionments, Atlanta was always kept within the 5th district represented by civil rights hero (and dinosaur) John Lewis. That has now changed. I have been put into the new 11th district which seems designed for Republican advantage. It won't make much difference either way. My vote never counted in the 5th and will probably not count in the 11th either. I was too conservative for the first and probably too socially liberal for the second.
James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton
Early 20th Century Progressivism =/= Modern Progressivism. You are engaing in the same fallacy that JPT engages in when he mentions that the Dems used to be the party of Jim Crow.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Zakaria? EWW, he's just another corporatist of the Neo-Liberal type.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Yes, the poster children for the turn of the 20th Century Progressivism were guys like Teddy Roosevelt and Hiram Johnson in California. Both Republicans (except for TR going Bull Moose in 1912), but that's meaningless in the context of today's political parties as they were starting to flip-flop after the New Deal and completed the flip-flop after the Great Society.
I wasn't thinking in terms of parties, I thought that comment was an oblique reference to things like Eugenics that were very popular among the old Progressives.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Ah yes, and for that matter it would be like tagging today's Planned Parenthood with the eugenics of Margaret Sanger, to basically discredit what it does today based on racist attitudes of nearly a century ago.
Well, I will defer to your sense of optimism rather than mine. But I still think you're forgetting what a big difference Bush was from Clinton and Obama was from Bush. I don't want to envision horrible doomsday scenarios. But suffice it to say the unmitigated authority of the GOP controlling the House, Senate, presidency, Supreme Court with the ability to pack it and the lower courts for generations to come does NOT seem promising.
Last edited by summer in the fall; 08-30-2011 at 12:09 PM. Reason: spelling, typos
More likely a right-wing police state that further connects political and economic power and represses any dissent with censorship, rigged elections, torture, assassinations, and purges. In view of the tendency of authoritarian regimes to accentuate the worst traits of the national heritage (in our case, militarism, anti-intellectualism, economic inequality, and expansionism), such is likely to lead to unspeakable disaster. That 4T ends at best with American military power shattered and the leadership of the authoritarian phase of the 4T in disgrace.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Yes, you are one of the people I was referring to earlier in your apparent belief that the new American Right is as bad as any oppressive regime we've seen in the last century. So tell me, how do you think they can pull this off in the context of our political system?
Hey, why'ja ignore me? Forget about encouraging doomsday scenarios; how are the voters gonna revolt their way out of "the unmitigated authority of the GOP controlling the House, Senate, presidency, Supreme Court with the ability to pack it and the lower courts for generations to come"?
You stated that his vacation indicated sloth.
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
PB and I have had this argument a dozen times. Let me try to convince you another way.
We live in an age without FDRs. The upside is that that is also an age without Hitlers. Please give it some thought. We won't have a police state, because it won't be necessary. In fact, the new breed of Republicans WANTS a few leftists out there to serve as propaganda targets.
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
No, I said that about his golf. It may seem the same, but it isn't. People who play golf regularly have too much time on their hands. I know that is an overstatement, but has been true much more often than not in my experience. There is nothing more time consuming than developing a good golf game. As to Obama, his hands off approach to the health care bill and budget is well known. Sloth is the temptation of the Peacemaker, but does not have to happen. There are healthy 9s and unhealthy 9s. An unhealthy 9 succumbs more to the temptation.
I don't have any problem with his vacation habits.
James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton
The problems of the day are not the result of or exacerbated by too much golfing or vacationing. All of those same things were said about Bush ("watch this drive") and it really amounts to partisanship unless you are one of the handful that bitched about it back then too. There was an article in June that said he had golfed 17 times this year. Thats less than once per weekend. I have a hard time getting bothered by a round of golf every 10 days. It is easy to try and make a "this is different" argument about it but it really isn't. There were plenty of things going on back then, too.
That said, if Obama starts knocking off every afternoon at 2:00 for a round I will become concerned.
As for his "weakness", the "fear of failure" one struck me as key to the Obama malaise. He is all ideas and no follow through. Needs downtime - INTP.
The Progressive movement spanned both parties. Wilson accomplished more legislatively than TR, much more.
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
