Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: 2012 Elections - Page 123







Post#3051 at 08-30-2011 09:59 AM by ziggyX65 [at Texas Hill Country joined Apr 2010 #posts 2,634]
---
08-30-2011, 09:59 AM #3051
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Texas Hill Country
Posts
2,634

Quote Originally Posted by Hutch74 View Post
Well, 9 points, but a bit meaningless 15 months before the next election. It's no surprise the Republicans are more excited about the prospects of 2012 than the Dems though.

But I'm curious how it went from a 2 points GOP lead the week ending 8-7, to a 9 point lead now. Likely the news this month of us possibly entering another recession could have been it.
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.







Post#3052 at 08-30-2011 10:11 AM by pizal81 [at China joined May 2010 #posts 2,392]
---
08-30-2011, 10:11 AM #3052
Join Date
May 2010
Location
China
Posts
2,392

Quote Originally Posted by ziggyX65 View Post
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.
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?







Post#3053 at 08-30-2011 10:15 AM by ziggyX65 [at Texas Hill Country joined Apr 2010 #posts 2,634]
---
08-30-2011, 10:15 AM #3053
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Texas Hill Country
Posts
2,634

Quote Originally Posted by pizal81 View Post
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.







Post#3054 at 08-30-2011 10:29 AM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
08-30-2011, 10:29 AM #3054
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

Quote Originally Posted by ziggyX65 View Post
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.
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.







Post#3055 at 08-30-2011 10:31 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
08-30-2011, 10:31 AM #3055
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
Hey, I was only nineteen at the time and I knew Reagan's economic plan was horseshit. But how does one go all the way back there and knock the Great Communicator off his perch? Does one paint him as malicious? Incompetent? Or simply misled?
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.







Post#3056 at 08-30-2011 10:35 AM by ziggyX65 [at Texas Hill Country joined Apr 2010 #posts 2,634]
---
08-30-2011, 10:35 AM #3056
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Texas Hill Country
Posts
2,634

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
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.
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.







Post#3057 at 08-30-2011 10:46 AM by ziggyX65 [at Texas Hill Country joined Apr 2010 #posts 2,634]
---
08-30-2011, 10:46 AM #3057
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Texas Hill Country
Posts
2,634

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
Hey, I was only nineteen at the time and I knew Reagan's economic plan was horseshit. But how does one go all the way back there and knock the Great Communicator off his perch? Does one paint him as malicious? Incompetent? Or simply misled?
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.







Post#3058 at 08-30-2011 11:23 AM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
08-30-2011, 11:23 AM #3058
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
James, I am appalled by your comment about Obama's vacation.
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







Post#3059 at 08-30-2011 11:34 AM by summer in the fall [at joined Jul 2011 #posts 1,540]
---
08-30-2011, 11:34 AM #3059
Join Date
Jul 2011
Posts
1,540

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?
Quote Originally Posted by ziggyX65 View Post
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.







Post#3060 at 08-30-2011 11:40 AM by ziggyX65 [at Texas Hill Country joined Apr 2010 #posts 2,634]
---
08-30-2011, 11:40 AM #3060
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Texas Hill Country
Posts
2,634

Quote Originally Posted by summer in the fall View Post
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.







Post#3061 at 08-30-2011 11:51 AM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
08-30-2011, 11:51 AM #3061
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

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







Post#3062 at 08-30-2011 11:54 AM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
08-30-2011, 11:54 AM #3062
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Galen View Post
If you want to know why the progressive agenda always seems to go wrong I would suggest you find out who was funding the Progressive party of the early twentieth century. Follow where clue leads and you will have your answer but I don't think you are going to like it.
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







Post#3063 at 08-30-2011 11:58 AM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
08-30-2011, 11:58 AM #3063
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
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.
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







Post#3064 at 08-30-2011 11:59 AM by ziggyX65 [at Texas Hill Country joined Apr 2010 #posts 2,634]
---
08-30-2011, 11:59 AM #3064
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Texas Hill Country
Posts
2,634

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
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.
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.







Post#3065 at 08-30-2011 12:03 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
08-30-2011, 12:03 PM #3065
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by ziggyX65 View Post
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







Post#3066 at 08-30-2011 12:05 PM by ziggyX65 [at Texas Hill Country joined Apr 2010 #posts 2,634]
---
08-30-2011, 12:05 PM #3066
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Texas Hill Country
Posts
2,634

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
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.
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.







Post#3067 at 08-30-2011 12:07 PM by summer in the fall [at joined Jul 2011 #posts 1,540]
---
08-30-2011, 12:07 PM #3067
Join Date
Jul 2011
Posts
1,540

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.
Quote Originally Posted by ziggyX65 View Post
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 summer in the fall; 08-30-2011 at 12:09 PM. Reason: spelling, typos







Post#3068 at 08-30-2011 12:09 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
08-30-2011, 12:09 PM #3068
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by ziggyX65 View Post
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.
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







Post#3069 at 08-30-2011 12:18 PM by ziggyX65 [at Texas Hill Country joined Apr 2010 #posts 2,634]
---
08-30-2011, 12:18 PM #3069
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Texas Hill Country
Posts
2,634

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
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.
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?







Post#3070 at 08-30-2011 12:24 PM by summer in the fall [at joined Jul 2011 #posts 1,540]
---
08-30-2011, 12:24 PM #3070
Join Date
Jul 2011
Posts
1,540

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"?
Quote Originally Posted by ziggyX65 View Post
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?







Post#3071 at 08-30-2011 01:11 PM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
08-30-2011, 01:11 PM #3071
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
What comment?

James50
You stated that his vacation indicated sloth.







Post#3072 at 08-30-2011 01:12 PM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
08-30-2011, 01:12 PM #3072
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
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.
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.







Post#3073 at 08-30-2011 01:20 PM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
08-30-2011, 01:20 PM #3073
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
You stated that his vacation indicated sloth.
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







Post#3074 at 08-30-2011 01:38 PM by Aramea [at joined Jan 2011 #posts 743]
---
08-30-2011, 01:38 PM #3074
Join Date
Jan 2011
Posts
743

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.







Post#3075 at 08-30-2011 03:03 PM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
08-30-2011, 03:03 PM #3075
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

Quote Originally Posted by ziggyX65 View Post
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.
The Progressive movement spanned both parties. Wilson accomplished more legislatively than TR, much more.
-----------------------------------------