Originally Posted by ziggyX65

This is one big difference between the right and the left, I think. When the right doesn't *fully* get their way, they are still more likely to show up on Election Day and vote for the Republican candidate even if they hold their nose and call him a "RINO". When the left doesn't get their preferred candidate, they sulk and stay home in larger numbers, helping to elect someone even worse in their eyes.

Thus there's an irony: In terms of rhetoric, the Republicans talk more radically and the Democrats talk more pragmatically ... but come Election Day the Republican core voters are more pragmatic (in showing up to vote for the "lesser of two evils") and the Democratic voters are more "radical" in their refusal to vote for a moderate Democratic candidate.

I think it is because the Left has less faith in elections really chaining anything, channeling Emma Goldman's attitude that "If elections changed anything they would be made illegal".

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Myself I still look upon his (Reagan) perch as an unfortunate accident of history, an injustice that needs correcting, and so on. It doesn't matter how long he's been on the pedestal. And to me the last 30 years have been almost like a blank page, thus no years at all, precisely because of his influence. At some point the myth needs to be exploded, and people need to understand how we got here.

It's going to be a long slog to get Reagan out of our systems if indeed we really want to. Recently I saw a car with a brand new un-weathered bumper sticker: "Reagan 84". I couldn't believe it.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

It's going to be a long slog to get Reagan out of our systems if indeed we really want to. Recently I saw a car with a brand new un-weathered bumper sticker: "Reagan 84". I couldn't believe it.

James50

I was thinking of putting a Nixon 72 sticker on my car just for the lolz.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The record needs to be corrected, and we don't need any more airports or anything else named after the creep.

Reagan on the $50 bill:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ronal...ry?id=10003010

n 1998, rapper P. Diddy introduced the nation to a new phrase. "It's all about the Benjamins, baby," he said, referring to $100 bills with the face of Benjamin Franklin. Given the tough economic times, perhaps Diddy needs to update his song and aim for a smaller unit of currency.
And if Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., has his way, Diddy may soon be singing about "Ronnies," in honor of the nation's 40th president, Ronald Reagan.
McHenry has introduced legislation that would take President Ulysses S. Grant off of the $50 bill and replace him with Reagan.
"Every generation needs its own heroes," McHenry said in a statement. "One decade into the 21st century, it's time to honor the last great president of the 20th and give President Reagan a place beside Presidents Roosevelt and Kennedy."
Franklin D. Roosevelt's profile is on the dime and Kennedy's is on the half-dollar.
As part of his push to get Reagan's portrait on the paper currency, McHenry called him "a modern day statesman, whose presidency transformed our nation's political and economic thinking."
Not so fast, said John Marszalek, executive director and managing editor of the Ulysses S. Grant Association at Mississippi State University.

ABC News Photo Illustration
Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., has introduced legislation that would take President Ulysses S. Grant off of the $50 bill and replace him with Reagan.




U.S. Grant, War Hero Who Still Has Fans

"There wouldn't be a United States without Ulysses S. Grant, you could argue, because of the Civil War and the tremendous military leader he was even before he became president," Marszalek told ABC News.
Marszalek said Grant, who led the Union Army to victory during the Civil War and later served as the nation's 18th president, deserves to stay right where he is on the $50 bill.
"I don't think it's a good idea because U.S. Grant was the president who was in the White House at a time when the currency was under tremendous stress because of the Civil War," Marszalek said. "It was his administration that began the process to firm up the U.S. currency that allowed the great economic boom of the late 19th, early 20th century."
McHenry's office said public opinion should factor into the decision and as a result, Reagan is frankly more deserving of the currency distinction than Grant.



Is President Reagan Worth $50?

"In polls of presidential scholars, President Reagan consistently outranks President Grant," a statement from McHenry's office said. "In 2005, The Wall Street Journal conducted one such poll of bipartisan scholars which ranked President Reagan 6th and President Grant 29th."
Marszalek took issue with that assessment and said it depends on which century you're talking about.
"Grant is one of the most popular figures of the 19th century and really into the middle of the 20th century," Marszalek said. "I don't think it would be appropriate to remove President Grant from the American currency. I think the identification is that significant."
The legislation seems unlikely to go anywhere in the immediate future. It would first have to pass the House Financial Services Committee in a Democratically-controlled Congress. A similar measure, introduced in 2005 when the Republicans controlled the House, never made it out of committee.
A spokesperson at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing said that, ultimately, it is the secretary of the Treasury who has the authority to change the nation's currency.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Myself I still look upon his perch as an unfortunate accident of history, an injustice that needs correcting, and so on. It doesn't matter how long he's been on the pedestal. And to me the last 30 years have been almost like a blank page, thus no years at all, precisely because of his influence. At some point the myth needs to be exploded, and people need to understand how we got here. I agree, it probably isn't the best tactic to mention him too much in a campaign today, but doing it sometimes seems right (of course, I myself do it more than sometimes, but I'm not campaigning). He is a sacred cow to some people, and he needs desperately to be debunked. Many people (like Weave, JDG and JPT here) think the way they do, primarily because they think Reagan's presidency was good for the country, and they believed in what he said. Or perhaps they grew up with him and don't know any better times. The record needs to be corrected, and we don't need any more airports or anything else named after the creep.

Reagan was not an accident at all. He was the expression of powerful forces and beliefs within American society that were emerging from eclipse during the previous half century. To suggest that none of this should have happened is to posit a fantasy America in which progressive views, barring unforeseen accidents, are destined to triumph. It took 30 years to put together the ideas and coalition that created the New Deal and another thirty to put its ideas fully into fruition. It has taken 50 years to undo all that work.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There is no parallel between now and the Gilded Age. The Democrats did not represent the common or working man at all until the later 1890s (W J Bryan). The closeness of presidential elections in the 1880s reflected at most the former blue/grey division, or perhaps the inadequacy or the sameness of the candidates. In those days the candidates stood mostly for themselves; i.e. who was the better of the two non-entities running.

An addendum to some of my recent predictions. Remember I had predicted that the repression of the Arab Spring, which I predicted here would make the revolution more difficult and violent in the actual Spring, would loosen at this time (this month, August), because the planetary tensions are decreasing (specifically, Saturn moving out of its opposition and square to the revolutionary planets Uranus and Pluto, thus holding back the revolutionary forces, for those interested). Things have heated up recently too due to the Mars angles to these three planets (as I foresaw, but didn't write). Another philosopher-astrologer Dr. Richard Tarnas has written in his book Cosmos and Psyche that the times when Saturn and Pluto are at angles to each other are times of reactionary power. Sometimes, as in the last 2 years, and in the mid-1960s, the progressive (Uranus-Pluto) and reactionary (Saturn-Pluto) trends overlap. I have also said, for other (astrological) reasons, that however unlikely it appears now, the economy may improve just enough starting in February to allow Obama's re-election.

The upshot is, with the Libya revolt ending, gas prices are already moderating, and will moderate more, and this will help the economy to recover. Remember, they spiked in the Spring ostensibly due to the Libyan revolt, and that was the trigger for the economic slowdown this year that is hurting Obama. Obama should also get some credit for helping to resolve this Libyan revolution, though that may be a stretch for parochial American voters. But also this means that the lessening repression, and the consequent greater opening for the progressive trends, applies to the USA as well as to North Africa. The Tea Party is the repressive, reactionary force in America, while Obama represents the progressive trend that put him in office. The Tea Party (due to its actions) is losing popularity along with Obama now, and soon (if I am correct) it will lose more popularity than Obama.

To this I have two comments:

1. How on earth does your characterization of the Gilded Age differ from what we have today? I don't see it.

2. Citing astrology to explain the Arab spring is for me in the same category as Michele Bachmann saying God is trying to get our attention with hurricanes and earthquakes.

Hi there, first time poster long time lurker. I'm from Canada but I've been reading a tonne about the 2012 elections recently with a mixture of bewilderment and fear. There's something about this Perry guy that is less than pleasant but he and his ilk seem to be winning the day when it comes to the media and the public. It seems like he's already been given the Republican nod in the minds of most and they're ready to hand him the keys to the white house at the same time. It's obvious that Obama's no saviour, but I think he's been dealt a bad hand and not given a chance to try and make things work. Maybe it's my outsider viewpoint talking, but I'm just not comfortable with the thought of an anti-intellectual religous nut with his "finger on the button" so to speak (ie: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13610). Why is this gaining such traction?

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Correction: He's proud of being an Xer, not of not being a Boomer.

And yet still, you don't get it. This is EXACTLY the time to be a peacemaker (if in fact that is what he's being) because this is a civil war. You don't have to raise everyone's blood pressure to be a good leader. That makes them dig in their heels harder. And I like that about Obama; when I see him (unlike a number of Boomers both past and present in Washington) my blood pressure doesn't go up.

.

I chose my words carefully. Obama has said, for instance, that because he isn't a Boomer he is not obsessed with Vietnam. He apparently got angry in a meeting when Richard Holbrooke (a Silent, actually) said that the Afghanistan discussion reminded him of Vietnam. That is, to me pride in not being a Boomer.

You can't be a peacemaker when the other side is fighting for unconditional surrender and thinks it can win. You first have to convince them that they will not get everything they want. The Republicans are nowhere near that point. To use an example, the white South finally got peace on its terms--restoration of white supremacy--after 1876 when the North got tired of reconstruction.

Bumper stickers seen around town "Chthulu in 2012 - why vote for the lesser of two evils?"

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Bumper stickers seen around town "Chthulu in 2012 - why vote for the lesser of two evils?"

GB - too obscure for me. I had to look it up.

HP Lovecraft's initial short story, The Call of Cthulhu, was published in Weird Tales in 1928 and established the character as a malevolent entity trapped in an underwater city in the South Pacific called R'lyeh.^[2] Described as being "...an octopus, a dragon, and a human caricature.... A pulpy, tentacled head surmounted a grotesque scaly body with rudimentary wings",^[3] and "a mountain walked or stumbled",^[4] the imprisoned Cthulhu is apparently the source of constant anxiety for mankind at a subconscious level, and also the subject of worship by a number of evil cults (located in Arabia, Greenland and Louisiana) and other Lovecraftian monsters (called Deep Ones^[5] and Mi-Go^[6]). The short story asserts the premise that while currently trapped Cthulhu will eventually return, with worshippers often repeating the phrase "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" - "In his house at R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming."^[7]

James50

Originally Posted by herbal tee

...if a GOP/Tea Party Senate reformed or quashed the filibuster it would certainly qualify as a 4T action.

-Interesting theory on it's face, but as I suspected:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibus...States_Senate)

...a change in legislative rules does not imply 4T-ness.

The first big change wrt the filibuster was in 1841 (2T) when it when Clay used it as a delaying tactic. The filibuster went through the end of the ACW 4T without change. It's first limit was when the US Senate introduced 2/3rds cloture in 1917 (3T) to push through the arming of US merchant vessels. The filibuster survived the WWII (4T) without change. The next change (during 2T) allowed other bills to be discussed while a filibuster was threatened. The current 3/5ths rule came in 1975 (2T).

So, the filibuster got started in a 2T, was limited during a 3T, and then limited again during a 2T.

There seems to be more actual history to support the idea that it might be the other way around; a 4T might be the time we'll be least likley to see a change in the filibuster. The idea that making changes for "decisive action" (e.g. limiting or ending the filibuster) sounds 4T, but it doesn't seem to be like that. I don't have any particular theory as to why that might be (other than that a time of danger might not seem to be a good time), but it seems to be that way.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

How do you reconcile this idea with the fact that the era of big government (1940 to 1980) outperformed the era of small government (1900 to 1940) in terms of per-capita annual real GDP growth by more than two to one?

-How do you reconcile the fact that the greatest period of economic growth was the Gilded Age which you constantly use as some sort of bogey-age?

QUOTE=The Wonkette;388874]In your scenario, where will the jobs come from?[/QUOTE]

-There's a story that when the Communist regime finally collapsed in 1991, some old babushka cried out "but who will make the trolleys?"

You, Jenny, are that babushka!

(as soon as your daughter has a kid)

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Just a nit, but we haven't had AFDC for 15 years; specifically, since 8/22/96. You mean SNAP, don't you (food stamps)?

-I remenber when you corrected me on the use of "HEW".

I guess this is your nit-picky hobby horse thing, huh?

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Bumper stickers seen around town "Chthulu in 2012 - why vote for the lesser of two evils?"

My current favorite: "Republicans for Voldemort."

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Reagan was not an accident at all. He was the expression of powerful forces and beliefs within American society that were emerging from eclipse during the previous half century. To suggest that none of this should have happened is to posit a fantasy America in which progressive views, barring unforeseen accidents, are destined to triumph. It took 30 years to put together the ideas and coalition that created the New Deal and another thirty to put its ideas fully into fruition. It has taken 50 years to undo all that work.

I assume that you think these two trends were simultaneous at many times. Reagan represented powerful forces; without Reagan, they would not have triumphed to the degree that they have, and progress would have continued. That does not mean this progress would have been unopposed, unlimited and unresisted. Remember also Carter only lost the election in the final week or two. A better Democratic candidate with better luck as an incumbent would have won. But I recognize indeed that there are forces of destiny at work, and these are not necessarily progressive forces. So maybe indeed Reagan was a figure of destiny. If so, what are we to make of this destiny for America? Are we destined to decline as a nation?

To this I have two comments:

1. How on earth does your characterization of the Gilded Age differ from what we have today? I don't see it.

It's true that virtually the same ideas that ruled the Gilded Age have again become orthodox (since Reagan). But at that time a progressive socialist agenda had not really appeared on the scene yet. That's why it was represented by neither Democrats or Republicans at that time, nor were the working class represented by either party. Today the Democrats represents a very-watered down socialism, and very-inadequately represent the working class. But the liberal agenda today still represents continuing the achievements of the progressive movement begun 120 years ago. There were no such "liberals" in the Gilded Age, and no existing heritage of regulation or social safety. The Republicans/Tea Party and libertarians like Galen indeed wish to return us entirely to the Gilded Age, but they won't succeed without a fight. This issue, and the one below, are what the now just-beginning 4T are about. These issues may not be resolved without an at-least temporary breakup of the United States.

2. Citing astrology to explain the Arab spring is for me in the same category as Michele Bachmann saying God is trying to get our attention with hurricanes and earthquakes.

---with the very major difference: astrology works, as what I cited gives evidence of. But most science-educated rationalists in America today do not understand what astrology is, but only know the ridiculed caricature. And so they ignore the actual evidence; actually a quite-unscientific approach.

Nature IS trying to get our attention though; the climate change that we have caused, is making hurricanes worse. And the earthquake quite fortuitously gave us a warning on nuclear power. I don't know if that is God's work or not, really. Probably not, but synchronicity happens. In any case, we are not heeding the warnings. Do we really want 30 or 50 square miles of America forever off limits, as has happened to Japan? What a horrible prospect. But that's what we face if we don't move away from nuclear power, not toward more nuclear power.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Correction: He's proud of being an Xer, not of not being a Boomer.

And yet still, you don't get it. This is EXACTLY the time to be a peacemaker (if in fact that is what he's being) because this is a civil war. You don't have to raise everyone's blood pressure to be a good leader. That makes them dig in their heels harder. And I like that about Obama; when I see him (unlike a number of Boomers both past and present in Washington) my blood pressure doesn't go up.

I chose my words carefully.

So did I.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Obama has said, for instance, that because he isn't a Boomer he is not obsessed with Vietnam. He apparently got angry in a meeting when Richard Holbrooke (a Silent, actually) said that the Afghanistan discussion reminded him of Vietnam. That is, to me pride in not being a Boomer.

The meanings of those two statements are pretty much identical, but the implication of one is that Obama posits his entire identity on what he is not, which is not only inaccurate but entirely Boomer-centric (something Boomers are all too notorious for being). When I saw Obama campaign as the product of a single mother that he loved and respected dearly, that he had a rootless childhood that often had him raised by his grandparents and that he emerged from it even more prideful of his country and determined to integrate every facet of his being into a self-defining strength, I saw an Xer narrative.

As for your interpretation of peacemaker, I suppose that would make sense if it were still the 1860s. But in my opinion we are still fighting that war. We are also still fighting the class war of the last saeculum in part because people don't really understand what government (or even capitalism for that matter) is. Obama can't close that education gap all on his own, hence the "we" in the "we are the ones we have been waiting for."

Cheers.

Globally, environmental problems and resource shortages look to be key aspects of this 4T. There may also be issues specific to individual countries - for example, American politics/economics, as mentioned by Eric Meece (Eric the Green).

Originally Posted by James50

GB - too obscure for me. I had to look it up.



James50

Ah. Not an sf fan, I gather. Chthulu is a favorite theme in fandom, if a minor one, and everyone is expected to get jokes about the critter. Stuffed Chthulu toys are a popular dealer's room item, even!

Originally Posted by MxDx

Hi there, first time poster long time lurker. I'm from Canada but I've been reading a tonne about the 2012 elections recently with a mixture of bewilderment and fear. There's something about this Perry guy that is less than pleasant but he and his ilk seem to be winning the day when it comes to the media and the public. It seems like he's already been given the Republican nod in the minds of most and they're ready to hand him the keys to the white house at the same time. It's obvious that Obama's no saviour, but I think he's been dealt a bad hand and not given a chance to try and make things work. Maybe it's my outsider viewpoint talking, but I'm just not comfortable with the thought of an anti-intellectual religous nut with his "finger on the button" so to speak (ie: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13610). Why is this gaining such traction?

To make a long story short, mass consensus does not dictate what is covered in the media and high stakes political races are good for TV ratings and the profits of media in general. If I were you, I'd start reading something else.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

To make a long story short, mass consensus does not dictate what is covered in the media and high stakes political races are good for TV ratings and the profits of media in general.

The media aren't stupid. They exist for ratings and profit, and it's pretty obvious that creating a contentious, Jerry Springer-like attitude in politics -- covering it like a no-holds-barred deathmatch -- is good for ratings. Unfortunately, it also whips people into a hateful frenzy along the way. Many of us comparatively "in the middle" are disgusted by the toxicity of today's politics, even though we (reluctantly) realize that sedate, scholarly and measured coverage of political news and analysis would be a snoozefest that wouldn't work in a 24/7 news format.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

According to Licthman 9 of his 13 keys have turned in the president favor.
Those of us who have read his book know that the incumbant party needs at least 8 of the 13 keys to hold the White House.

EDIT: Licthman first used his keys in 1981 to predict Reagans 1984 reelection. Keep in mind that Reagan was dealing with a severe recession at the time. He has predicted every election since correctly. 7 out of 7. It is a link worth a look.

According to Lichtman, if six or more keys are against the incumbent, the challenging party wins. If four or less are against the incumbent, then the incumbent party wins. If five are against the incumbent, it could go either way. Obama is currently down three keys with one as undecided (short term economy). However, it is more than one year out. Things could snowball either way. A faltering economy could generate social unrest, which could generate a primary challenge or a third party. We'll see.

I personally hope that Obama wins reelection, but its too soon to look at the keys. Let's try next summer, around the time of the conventions.

Also, the keys predict the popular vote, which doesn't always match the electoral result. See 2000.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

According to Lichtman, if six or more keys are against the incumbent, the challenging party wins. If four or less are against the incumbent, then the incumbent party wins. If five are against the incumbent, it could go either way. Obama is currently down three keys with one as undecided (short term economy). However, it is more than one year out. Things could snowball either way. A faltering economy could generate social unrest, which could generate a primary challenge or a third party. We'll see...

-FWIW:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
...Allan J. Lichtman has issued a prediction that... looks awfully bold.

“...I don’t see how Obama can lose,” Mr. Lichtman told Paul Bedard of U.S. News & World Report. Mr. Lichtman’s prediction is based on a book he published (the first edition came out prior to the 1984 election) called “The Keys to the White House”. The book cites 13 factors that it says can work either for or against the incumbent party’s presidential candidate. If at least 8 of the 13 keys are scored in favor of the incumbent, he will win the election, Mr. Lichtman says; if he gets 7 or fewer scored for him, he will not...
The book claims to have called the winner of the popular vote correctly in each election since 1860. (It would not have gotten the winner of the Electoral College right in 1876, 1888 or 2000, when the popular and electoral vote split.) That’s 38 elections in a row! Superficially quite impressive...

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

The media aren't stupid. They exist for ratings and profit, and it's pretty obvious that creating a contentious, Jerry Springer-like attitude in politics -- covering it like a no-holds-barred deathmatch -- is good for ratings. Unfortunately, it also whips people into a hateful frenzy along the way. Many of us comparatively "in the middle" are disgusted by the toxicity of today's politics, even though we (reluctantly) realize that sedate, scholarly and measured coverage of political news and analysis would be a snoozefest that wouldn't work in a 24/7 news format.

Such is very 3T... a 3T luxury that will have to be scrapped as the 4T becomes more obviously ominous. Maybe politics have so degenerated that nobody needs to see the schlock confrontations in which a disobedient child (usually X in the 1990s) got to show how vile, reckless, and insensitive one could be before getting a trip from the talk show to a lockup where one got to see the consequences of underage drinking, drug use, and ripping people off led -- or when some smug man-child got to find out "You are the father" as from Maury Povich delivered the results of a DNA test after that man-child claimed that "anyone could be the father of the child of that 'whore' ". I need say nothing about the usual Springer program that often led to flying furniture. We could always discount Springer for bringing trashy people to television.

In the last 4T, Americans faced three dreary years of an economic meltdown that destroyed much commonplace narcissism and forced people to look to pragmatic, long-term solution. Americans were far more patient in 1934 with the agonizing pace of a weak recovery than they are today. Can anyone imagine a well-funded and well-organized movement analogous to the Tea Party Movement in the early 1930s except among economic elites? We are seeing less of the public display of Tea Party Cult ideology. The rallies are smaller and less frequent.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

... the folks who plant the seeds and get seedlings are every bit as important -- if not more so -- than those who grow the seedlings into trees.

Thanks, Zig. Another one of those gems that I pick up on this forum and stash in my book of quotes, to think about again ...

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I chose my words carefully. Obama has said, for instance, that because he isn't a Boomer he is not obsessed with Vietnam. He apparently got angry in a meeting when Richard Holbrooke (a Silent, actually) said that the Afghanistan discussion reminded him of Vietnam. That is, to me pride in not being a Boomer.

You can't be a peacemaker when the other side is fighting for unconditional surrender and thinks it can win. You first have to convince them that they will not get everything they want. The Republicans are nowhere near that point. To use an example, the white South finally got peace on its terms--restoration of white supremacy--after 1876 when the North got tired of reconstruction.

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure that Generation X wants Obama (cusper though he may be) in our ranks. If he is proud to not be a Boomer then he sure has a funny way of showing it. But I have a solution! I propose the first ever generational trade. Boomers can have Obama if Xers get Henry Rollins. Straight up trade with no other future considerations. Deal?

Sorry bud. There's no hand vote for membership. This one right here says he's a keeper.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure that Generation X wants Obama (cusper though he may be) in our ranks. If he is proud to not be a Boomer then he sure has a funny way of showing it. But I have a solution! I propose the first ever generational trade. Boomers can have Obama if Xers get Henry Rollins. Straight up trade with no other future considerations. Deal?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

My current favorite: "Republicans for Voldemort."

I saw that sticker on a customer's car in the parking lot at work today.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

So did I.



The meanings of those two statements are pretty much identical, but the implication of one is that Obama posits his entire identity on what he is not, which is not only inaccurate but entirely Boomer-centric (something Boomers are all too notorious for being). When I saw Obama campaign as the product of a single mother that he loved and respected dearly, that he had a rootless childhood that often had him raised by his grandparents and that he emerged from it even more prideful of his country and determined to integrate every facet of his being into a self-defining strength, I saw an Xer narrative.

As for your interpretation of peacemaker, I suppose that would make sense if it were still the 1860s. But in my opinion we are still fighting that war. We are also still fighting the class war of the last saeculum in part because people don't really understand what government (or even capitalism for that matter) is. Obama can't close that education gap all on his own, hence the "we" in the "we are the ones we have been waiting for."

Cheers.

I don't understand your last paragraph. I agree that we are still fighting both wars, which is why I think that it is foolish for any Democratic President to think he can make peace with the Republicans before it has been demonstrated to them that they have gotten as much as they can get and that continuing the battle will work to their disadvantage. They clearly don't feel that now.