Wow. Now you want to claim Obama as a Boomer even though your mate KaiserD2 is adamant that...Originally Posted by Eric the Green
...and everything about him screams Xer. Taking a bit of pride in a fellow Xer is a source of anxiety for you geezers. Wonder where that comes from.
What pride can you have in him at this point?
Way to dodge my response to your strange comments again....
I'm sorry, Eric. That is not what I said. I said insinuating that Obama should be the left-wing equivalent of Bush (a crazy Boomer) was provoking civil war. Now whether or not he is "bold," that supposes that we are in agreement on what that word means. Your interpretation would suggest behavioral patterns I interpret as "crazy."You are the one I am talking to. You are the one who said that my statement that Obama should be bold is "a boomer keeping an ideological war going."
Well, I disagree that the Gilded Age was the result of a false regeneracy or was, in terms of the issues that prevailed in the mid-19th century, a failed High in any way. Of course you're right that it was a 1T, not a 4T. I would extend the 4T that saeculum considerably later than S&H did in T4T, but not that far.
It's tempting to some to see the Gilded Age as a failure because the issues it left unresolved are closer to those of our own time, and in fact some of them are still unresolved today. By comparison, the American Revolution Crisis and Era of Good Feeling actually left a much greater evil in place -- slavery -- but because slavery is a dead issue now, it doesn't seem burning or damning for the epoch. So it's understandable that some would look on the unregulated corporate excess, the complete lack of protection for workers' rights, the twelve- or fourteen-hour days, the frequent severe economic breakdowns, and the excessive influence of capitalism on government, and because those are (with a few exceptions) OUR issues today, see them as indications of a failed Crisis/High, while not seeing the people in chains, the whip-scarred backs, the families split up on the auction block, and the excessive influence of quasi-feudalism on government from the previous saeculum as a failure -- because we don't still have those things before us, and they are not our issues.
In fact, neither represents a failure. The Constitution could not have been achieved without kicking slavery down the road as an issue to be dealt with later; in that saeculum, the Constitution was a necessity and emancipation was not. In the following saeculum, workers' rights and excessive corporate influence could not become issues for the nation until industrialization was achieved and capitalism empowered. As Marx outlined (this was part of what he got right), the conflict between feudalism and capitalism must be resolved in favor of the bourgeoisie, before the conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat can be fought out. So we had to have a Gilded Age.
Once. We can't, however, have it twice, any more than we can re-institute slavery. The attempt to do so, which is nowhere near complete, is already provoking massive resistance and also causing enormous economic trouble. It has gone about as far as it can.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"
My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/
The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903
Poly Sci
Life is for learning.
And from what I understand many conservatives plan to back Perry because he has the combination of being both a reliable conservative and he is tested as an executive.
That test can be applied across ideological lines.
Simply put, as someone like Howard Dean has been a trusted center-left executive.
Then even if he chooses not to run in 2016 or thereabouts then at least someone with his background applying progressive/center-left principals to governance should be seriously considered.
To get specific about 2012 I'll go out on a limb here and say that Obama could run as a 4T president.
He can't exactly channel FDR at this point but he can't give away the Federal Gas Tax which must be reaurthorized this month or else a lot of DOT projects, and the jobs they provide die.
I think the problem with a lot of people is that they expect everything to be fixed in a Crisis. IMO only the most dire things that are required to be addressed are fixed. Everything else is left to the wayside. What needed to be addressed in the American Revolution Crisis was the creation of a new country. What needed to be addressed in the Civil War Crisis was the definition of what our country was--an Agrarian slave-using country, or a proto-Industrial wage-slave country. What needed to be addressed in the Great Power Crisis was the imbalance of our proto-Industrial nation into becoming a fully mechanized Industrial nation.
What this Crisis is about--well we'll as a nation figure that one out, and there will probably be unresolved issues... but oh well.
Besides, there has to be something for future generations to work on and improove. However one thing to keep in mind is that we'll never achieve perfection. Perfection is static & boring.
~Chas'88
Last edited by Chas'88; 09-03-2011 at 01:47 AM.
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."
Such intelligence, such good sense. I'm starting to like Millennials more and more.
It's lovely to meet you too Summer. :-)Such intelligence, such good sense. I'm starting to like Millennials more and more.
~Chas'88
Last edited by Chas'88; 09-03-2011 at 01:56 AM.
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."
Bush's policies and methods were pretty crazy. I only suggested that the voters liked that they "knew where he stood." I don't think Obama should go crazy, but he needs to clearly spell out where the country needs to go, and hope the voters respond well to that-- as they tend to do. They won't respond well to waffling and pandering. Compromise is normally needed to get bills passed into law. But working with the current congress is an exercize in futility. He can only hope for better election returns in 2012, if he wants to achieve anything substantial, and speak directly to the voters for support. You need to know who your opposition is. Understanding that very self-evident fact is not the same as advocating or practicing an ideological war. Now, is that more clear?
You're just gonna have to get used to having an Xer president. I know it's hard. But one place to start is giving up any illusions of control. This incessant oppositional speak is counterproductive. I know you think that it's helpful. But it aint. Obama isn't stupid. I know you seem to think you are smarter than him. But it behooves you to find something positive about the man anyway and focus on that. I promise that if you do, the world will not go down in flames tomorrow because Eric dropped the ball and had a positive thought. Best...Bush's policies and methods were pretty crazy. I only suggested that the voters liked that they "knew where he stood." I don't think Obama should go crazy, but he needs to clearly spell out where the country needs to go, and hope the voters respond well to that-- as they tend to do. They won't respond well to waffling and pandering. Compromise is normally needed to get bills passed into law. But working with the current congress is an exercize in futility. He can only hope for better election returns in 2012, if he wants to achieve anything substantial, and speak directly to the voters for support. You need to know who your opposition is. Understanding that very self-evident fact is not the same as advocating or practicing an ideological war. Now, is that more clear?
night all...
Framing this as a Boomer vs. Xer thing is absurd, and you come off as obsessive over that conflict (although you do have company there, on this board, since it's a board about Generational Theory). I am a solid Xer born in 1968, and I see the problem with Obama as one that can exist in members of any generation: the classic case of how one confronts a bully who will demand whatever he wants of you without compromise. Every generation has bullies, every generation has people who will submit to bullies or "try to talk to" them (to no avail), and every generation has people who will fight back (maybe after trying and failing to reason with them, maybe not). I saw all three types growing up in my own generation, and I see all three types existing in other generations, both as kids and as adults. It's a universal dynamic I think most of us can understand and relate to, particularly those who have faced bullies themselves, physically or metaphorically.
Now, the right-wing Republicans in Congress are in a metaphorical sense acting like a bully: demanding what they want, all they want, not allowing any room for compromise or respectfully offering anything in return because they feel they don't need to, that their bombast and stridency, and the loud angry base and the millions of corporate dollars backing them up, will be enough to intimidate their opposition and make them stammer and cave to their demands. Because, well, it appears to be doing just that among their opposition in Congress and in the White House. Reasoning with the reasonable is a good use of one's time. Reasoning with those who will not be reasoned with, not so much. And it's wise to recognize the difference, in people you're dealing with, so you don't get rolled. (I know I said this was universal to all generations, and it is, but if I'd have to characterize the Xer Generation as a whole, they tend to learn "how not to get rolled" pretty early, after getting rolled a time or two early in life.) With me so far?
So, following the metaphor, when confronted with the bully demanding his lunch money: does Obama offer to give them most of his lunch money and hope that will make them more reasonable for awhile? Does he give them all of it, to "avoid conflict" (until the next time they demand it of course)? Or does the man stand up for himself (and the American people he was elected to stand up for). God knows (as do you) that he's tried and tried again to reason with them, and given them most of what they wanted (Boehner even boasted that "98%" of what they wanted they got, last go round). If he finally got more bold, saying "look, I was elected to do this and this and this, and by God I'm going to fight to do those things," and did draw some lines in the sand, I don't think too many people will begrudge him that, who don't already begrudge him for the fact that he's any kind of a liberal President at all. People cheer for the one who stands up to the bully (even if it takes a while for him to muster the gumption to do it), and bullies themselves tend to back off and reconsider someone who fights back--they only thrive on people who never do.
Now this is all metaphorical, and isn't perfectly congruent to what goes on on the school playground. So I'm not talking about physical violence or "civil war". What I'd like for him to do is take some firm stands on some issues and make clear a few things of his own that he won't give in on. I would like him to articulate the progressive values he supposedly has clearly and proudly, and tell us why they are worth standing for. In short, to lead a lot more assertively than he has. Not as "my way or the highway" as Bush 43 did and as the Republicans currently feel empowered to do, but not quietly caving on everything either. Just, well, being "Presidential"--being the kind of leader we expect a good President to be, understanding that the people who elected him did give him some power and the right to use it (without abusing it).
Bush 43 arguably abused it, claiming every bit of executive power he could legally (or by questionable "legal theory") wring out of the office after getting elected both times by fairly narrow margins at best. Obama was elected by a wider margin than Bush 43 ever was, and yet he behaves as if he has no right whatsoever to lead as the progressive (even moderate progressive) he is. Bush said, "elections have consequences", and we certainly saw that they did with him. So when a progressive wins, shouldn't that too have some "consequences"? Not saying he should go nuts as Bush did, just act like the leader his voters had every reasonable right to expect, especially given the clearer than normal choice we seemed to have in 2008, and given all the issues that were presented the voters then. Not roll over the opposition, but not get rolled over by the opposition either. Just lead as if he frigging won the election, dammit. Otherwise he won't again, I fear.
So yes, in short, sometimes confrontation is the only reasonable action left, short of surrender, in either physical or metaphorical sense. A good rule of thumb is never to start a fight, but to know when you must finish one because sometimes walking away is not an option. And it isn't an option now, with all that's at stake in this country.
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." --Kosh Naranek
"...Your side, my side, and the truth." --John Sheridan
"No more half-measures." --Mike Ehrmantraut
"rationalizing...is never clear thinking." --SM Kovalinsky
This is all rather interesting. To begin with, for some reason, until just a few moments ago, I though Summer was a woman. Must be because of Princess Summerfall Winterspring, whom a few of my contemporaries will still remember. Come to think of it, Summer, have you been here before with another name? You remind me of some one else whose handle I can't remember.
Now Summer, you seem to be motivated above all by a hatred of Boomers, and it doesn't make for very useful exchanges here. No one has been more critical of Boomers here than I have, but we are individuals, believe it or not. It's not like you've "caught us out" because you find two of us disagreeing.
No one wanted Obama to be a left-wing equivalent of rationally challenged, unthinking, "I go by my instincts" George W. Bush. But we would have liked him to repudiate more of what Bush did overseas and definitely stand for something different at home, like end the Bush tax cuts, for instance. Instead he has been a resolute defender of the status quo, including the features his predecessor added to it. All he had to do was take the positions that the House majority of 2011-12 took, like single payer, cap and trade, etc. He caved.
And at this point, with the economy going nowhere but down, he simply has to at least propose something that could work, even though the Republicans won't pass it. Truman did that in 1948 with a Republican Congress and it worked. He is simply too vulnerable.
Eric, of course I meant a 4T (the Civil War) that had no "regenerative" effect in the 1T. And Eric, in my opinion, you have an obligation to ask yourself a year from November whether you would prefer Obama to, say, Rick Perry, and if the answer is yes, you have an obligation to vote for him.
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
"Perry & Bachmann in 2012 ... prove the Mayan Calendar folks right."
or, for those who remember old Bob Heinlein, "Perry and Bachmann in 2012 -- Revolt in 2100."
Oh, I need to make up one of those for myself!
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."
"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.
Of course, Truman did that in a 1T and Obama is doing it in a 4T. These are, of course, radically different situations in terms of trying to get bipartisan support -- in terms of getting both sides to work together -- for almost anything.
It's getting ugly!
Folks, we got a whole another 1+ years of this.It’s getting ugly!
Republicans are accusing Democratic congressional hopeful David Weprin of sending spies to “volunteer” for rival Bob Turner’s campaign as a new GOP poll found Turner has pulled even in the race for Anthony Weiner’s House seat.
Turner campaign spokesman William O’Reilly charged that Assemblyman Weprin “is sending young people into Turner campaign headquarters pretending to be volunteers or college reporters. We have caught four of them already.”
“Only a career politician scrambling to save his hide would sink to such a low.”
Weprin spokeswoman Liz Kerr said, “I don’t know anything about it.” She declined further comment on the explosive accusation.
The McLaughlin & Associates poll of 300 likely voters in the predominantly Democratic 9th Congressional District in Queens and Brooklyn showed the candidates tied at 42 percent after a July survey had Weprin ahead 43-35. The pollsters said independent voters are breaking toward Turner as the Sept. 13 special election approaches.
But Weprin has raised more than three times as much as Turner, pulling in about $550,000, according to his campaign. Turner raised about $143,000 and loaned himself $65,500, leaving him $96,500 in the bank, his disclosure reports show. Weprin had not filed full disclosure forms as of yesterday evening, but records show he got $5,000 from the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers and $2,500 from Sterling Mets LP, owners of the New York Mets.
Turner raked in $5,000 from the National Republican Campaign Committee, $500 from the State Conservative Party, $1,000 from Home Depot founder Ken Langone, $5,000 from supermarket magnate John Catsimatidis and his wife, $7,500 from real-estate mogul Peter Kalikow and his family, and $500 from Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-Syracuse).
Meanwhile Weprin, stumping at senior centers in Queens yesterday, downplayed his decision to distance himself from President Obama in campaign literature and on the trail. “I’ve never met President Obama. [Turner] is running against me,” Weprin said during an event at the Young Israel of Forest Hills Senior League.Weprin also picked up the endorsement of the teachers union.
On the campaign trail, Turner joined former Mayor Ed Koch at the Kosher Palace supermarket in Sheepshead Bay yesterday and called on Obama “to cease sending aid to the Palestinian Authority.”
"I've never met President Obama" - my vote for astounding statement of the day by a Democrat running for office. We've come a long way since election day 2008.
James50
Last edited by James50; 09-03-2011 at 11:19 AM.
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 laughed out loud at that one.
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
Several have now said this or something like it. It makes sense. Where the left may be deluding itself is what the nature of the problem is. Suppose for most of the population, the problem is overly large institutions that are unresponsive, uncaring, and diverting all excess resources into their own pockets. This would include big government, big corporations, and big labor unions. The left sees the big corporations and thinks the answer is to control them with big government. The right sees the problem as big government and wants to balance it with big money. The public is looking for someone that will say a pox on all your houses. This quasi-populist way of thinking would explain the dramatic shifts from election to election. To be overly simple, 2008 was a vote against big corporations, 2010 was a vote against big government, but the source of the repudiation was the same.
If this way of thinking is correct, the party that can give voice to a 21st trust busting agenda that includes all of the large institutions in our society will achieve a majority.
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 completely agree with this--I don't think the word "balance" is in the current right wing vocabulary--but there is still a continuing attack on authority from both sides, yes, with authority seemingly unable to do anything that would earn genuine respect from the population. And I don't see how the new High, when it finally emerges, could ever show the kind of consensus that the Republican High or post-Second World War High did.
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
I don't think it's any more incredible that Democratic Congressmen announcing last fall they wouldn't vote for Pelosi for speaker. In this latter case you left out the key variable: he's Jewish running in a Jewish district. By the way, stopping aid to the Palestinian authority would leave Hamas in total control.
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
The Jewish vote has been a core constituency of the Democratic party for generations. If Obama loses their enthusiasm, he makes his re-election all that much more difficult. N'est-ce pas?
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
Has anyone taken the time to mention the obvious: you're a snotty brat. Acting like a privileged princess, on a message board that doesn't tolerate that behavior very well, won't get you very far. Why not try a different tone. You might get better results.
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.
The Republicans often accuse the Dems of doing what they do themselves.
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
Palin & Bachmann would be worse, one I would renounce my citizenship over. Perry and Obama are the globalist's candidates for 2012. So its still a pick your poison choice.
That may appear how it looks. But it isn't. My mother is a Boomer and I relate very much to Obama's upbringing. This is perhaps why I often feel I understand his approach. Now if I saw as many Xers jockeying to tear Obama down as I see Boomers, perhaps I wouldn't view it the way I do. But the loudest pundits in the left-wing camp screaming about Obama's ineptitude are Boomers. All of the major contenders in the Republican bid for the 2012 nomination are Boomers (sorry folks, the media is giving Ron Paul the shaft). And the only realistic alternative I've heard given to Obama (Clinton/Dean), are Boomers. Sorry folks, I see a pattern here. And I think people are in denial of what that is. Boomers don't react the same as Xers do. If I have to explain that basic concept on this message board of all places, then there is no hope for settlement. As for the rest of your careful explanation of the current situation in the White House, I will defer to my earlier statement directed to Eric the Green...
Best...
Last edited by summer in the fall; 09-03-2011 at 12:35 PM. Reason: typos, etc.
First of all, agreed about Ron Paul. Like him or not, he finished a close second behind Bachmann in Iowa and more people are talking about Huntsman (who came in what, 5th or 6th?) than about Ron Paul. He is not the type of candidate a corporate media wants to promote, so they will marginalize his candidacy every chance they get.
As for the rest, I do think Boomers tend to be more idealistic than pragmatic and I think we see that in the Boomer challenges on the Left (Obama's a corporate sellout and not progressive enough) and on the Right (nothing he does would *ever* satisfy the neocons). Xers, I think, being somewhat more likely to be raised with cynicism and distrust of institutions, are more likely to distrust both political parties and their leadership. (A major political party is very much an "institution" like government itself, or Big Business.) So I wouldn't expect a cynical and more pragmatic bunch to go "all in" with either side that's bashing the president. So maybe Xers, used to being crapped on by all the institutions, can relate to this president for being bashed on both sides in a Clinton-like attempt to triangulate (Clinton pragmatically tacked to the center after the 1994 midterm drubbing, and it appears Obama did the same after 2010). Clinton did it early in the 3T, though, not in the 4T where triangulation is much more difficult to pull off.
Having said that, I don't think viewing Boomers as "the enemy" really accomplishes anything here.
Last edited by ziggyX65; 09-03-2011 at 12:40 PM.
