Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Having said that, I don't think viewing Boomers as "the enemy" really accomplishes anything here.

Believing Obama is smarter and more competent than he's characterized (by mostly Boomers and those seeking Boomer-ish leadership) does not translate to Boomers are "the enemy."

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

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...

night all...

I had lots of positive thoughts about him, but I'm running out. When he goes and trashes the environment, it kinda clears out the mind of positive thoughts! Oh well. I hope he grows a backbone soon. Our nation could use it!

Originally Posted by Alioth68

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.

Excellent statement Aloith. I hope Mr. Summer in the Fall can get it when it comes from an Xer!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I had lots of positive thoughts about him...

There's a start. Now change that "had" into a "have" and you'll be a winner....

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Originally Posted by Alioth68

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.

Excellent statement Aloith. I hope Mr. Summer in the Fall can get it when it comes from an Xer!

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Believing Obama is smarter and more competent than he's characterized (by mostly Boomers and those seeking Boomer-ish leadership) does not translate to Boomers are "the enemy."

Nice try Eric.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Believing Obama is smarter and more competent than he's characterized (by mostly Boomers and those seeking Boomer-ish leadership) does not translate to Boomers are "the enemy."

But I'm not seeing anyone questioning his intelligence. They don't agree with the direction he's taking us (neither the Left nor the Right particularly like the course he's charting), but that says nothing about intellect. There are folks I very strongly disagree with but whom I believe are intellectually brilliant. One need not go "all in" with someone's agenda to believe they are very bright.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

There's a start. Now change that "had" into a "have" and you'll be a winner....

Well, I kinda need some positive actions to be positive about at this point. We'll see if he reverses his recent trashing of the environment, and makes some bold progressive proposals this Thursday. He's got to do something more than trying to work with this depraved congress; some things that might work now, but also some things that might work after 2012. He's got to challenge the people.

By the way Summer, what is Obama doing these days that is so "smart?"

Originally Posted by Alioth68

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.

Thank you for posting this.
It sums up a lot of what I see as the Obama problem.

For me there's just a disconnect with the Obama approach that I can't reconcile. We're both 1961 cohorts born in the western US so there are some similarities in our backgrounds. But apparently we learned very different conflict resolution skills growing up. I didn't go to an Indonesian madrassa nor get extra rewards like admission to Harvard law school for being good. I had to work my way through public schools and college.

I certainly hope that they didn't teach the so called elite of my age group that they can go though life without conflict if they just give in all of the time. My life experience has been that conflict happens and as you noted if the others involved in the conflict can not be reasoned with then they must be defeated in some way.
And that's as much true in an 8th grade boys gym class full of mudheads that will drop out of high school the minute they turn 16 as it is a Congress full of corporate funded Tea Party types.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well, I kinda need some positive actions to be positive about at this point. We'll see if he reverses his recent trashing of the environment, and makes some bold progressive proposals this Thursday. He's got to do something more than trying to work with this depraved congress; some things that might work now, but also some things that might work after 2012. He's got to challenge the people.

By the way, what is Obama doing these days that is so "smart?"

Playing the waiting game on political failures? Dealing directly with State Governors on disaster relief?

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Believing Obama is smarter and more competent than he's characterized (by mostly Boomers and those seeking Boomer-ish leadership) does not translate to Boomers are "the enemy."

But I'm not seeing anyone questioning his intelligence. They don't agree with the direction he's taking us (neither the Left nor the Right particularly like the course he's charting), but that says nothing about intellect. There are folks I very strongly disagree with but whom I believe are intellectually brilliant. One need not go "all in" with someone's agenda to believe they are very bright.

I feel a debate on semantics coming on. One thing that I don't doubt within the least is that Obama desires what's best for the country. I don't see him as reckless (Bush) or motivated by pride (Clinton) than doing what's best. Now if you disagree with me, that Obama is not seeking what's best for the country then that is where we part ways and as a fellow American I am sad for you. But if you believe he wants to do the right thing, that leaves competence as the thing in question.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well, I kinda need some positive actions to be positive about at this point.

Wow, you can't think of one thing positive about our President.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

By the way Summer, what is Obama doing these days that is so "smart?"

But from my perspective, Eric, that's a trick question because it supposes that I see him primarily as being un-smart.

Originally Posted by James50

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 situation is very complicated. One reason is that the Israeli lobby, which now includes Ed Koch, is way to the right of the average Jewish voter in the US. This has been documented many times. Obama was thought to have problems with Jewish voters last time out but they voted overwhelmingly for him, including Florida retirees, thanks in part to the great Sarah Silverman's Great Schlep. Obama has definitely alienated AIPAC but whether he's going to lose a large portion of the Jewish vote remains to be seen. I don't think he's in any danger of losing New York, Connecticut, or probably New Jersey--certainly not to Rick Perry--but Florida is probably gone anyway.

Originally Posted by James50

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

You've just illuminated what a LOT of Millies that I know wish to see happen. Some back in 2008 who weren't deluded by the Obama speeches looked at Ralph Nader & Ron Paul and tried marrying their philosophies together.

And since you mentioned the bolded line, I thought I'd do this little time warp back to the late 1980s/early 1990s with a song that most Xers will remember that voices this concern.

911 is a Joke - Public Enemy - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ-ldcnhsLY

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Some back in 2008 who weren't deluded by the Obama speeches looked at Ralph Nader & Ron Paul and tried marrying their philosophies together.

Yeah, it can be interesting. Both Nader and Paul have an appeal to people who oppose the corporate status quo, the military industrial complex and government intervention in foreign affairs. But reconciling the very different roles Nader and Paul think the government -- particularly federal government -- should play in managing affairs is radically different. That said, I know Paul supporters who have a soft spot in their hearts for Nader, and Nader supporters likewise for Paul -- I think both camps respect the lack of accepting the status quo, saying what they really mean, and willingness to call government "the problem" in some areas of common ground (mostly war, defense and foreign policy).

(Ron Paul may support policies that are perceived to be friendly to Big Business, but he has been as outspoken as any liberal about government bailing them out -- or about all the money we're pissing away on military excursions.)

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Yeah, it can be interesting. Both Nader and Paul have an appeal to people who oppose the corporate status quo, the military industrial complex and government intervention in foreign affairs. But reconciling the very different roles Nader and Paul think the government -- particularly federal government -- should play in managing affairs is radically different. That said, I know Paul supporters who have a soft spot in their hearts for Nader, and Nader supporters likewise for Paul -- I think both camps respect the lack of accepting the status quo, saying what they really mean, and willingness to call government "the problem" in some areas of common ground (mostly war, defense and foreign policy).

Which is what a lot of them eventually realized.

(Ron Paul may support policies that are perceived to be friendly to Big Business, but he has been as outspoken as any liberal about government bailing them out -- or about all the money we're pissing away on military excursions.)

Which is why, though I voted Nader in 2008, I respect Paul.

If they ever decided to put aside their differences and chose to fight what they thought of as a common enemy, they'd be a political odd couple. Ralph being Felix of course.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Which is why, though I voted Nader in 2008, I respect Paul.

If they ever decided to put aside their differences and chose to fight what they thought of as a common enemy, they'd be a political odd couple. Ralph being Felix of course.

That's the interesting thing. They really *do* have a lot in common where opposing the corporate/elite/military status quo is concerned. But the areas where they differ are *so* radically different that a "marriage" just doesn't seem feasible. Though I would personally suggest that public policy which incorporates all of their agreements and meets halfway on their differences might well be a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

One thing that I don't doubt within the least is that Obama desires what's best for the country.

In the sense that he isn't blatantly self-serving or actively opposing what (he thinks) is best, I agree. In the sense that he is pursuing, not only what he thinks is best, but what objectively really IS best, I don't.

In some ways, Obama reminds me of Neville Chamberlain: a good man for a different time. The parallels are exact. Chamberlain is vilified today with the word "appeasement," but in fact appeasement is the right approach most of the time. Another word for it is "compromise." Still another is "diplomacy." Generally speaking, a diplomat or national leader who will not compromise or appease is locking his nation into war. In normal times, Chamberlain's approach would have been the right one and Churchill's completely wrong. But those were not normal times. Every once in a while, one is confronted with an adversary for whom appeasement is the wrong approach, simply because he cannot be appeased. And that describes Adolf Hitler, who was hell-bent on war, come what may. Hitler was the one-in-a-million situation for which Churchill's approach was right and Chamberlain's wrong.

In our domestic politics, we have a similar situation today. If Obama adopts a less compromising, more combative approach to the Republicans in Congress, he will not get the crucial legislation passed that we need. But if he does not -- he will still not get the crucial legislation passed that we need, because the Republicans cannot be appeased and will not compromise. And he may also lose his reelection bid, putting us in even worse straits as of 2013. With this Congress, war (metaphorically speaking) can't be avoided. Obama needs to stop being Chamberlain and find his inner Churchill. Normally, that's bad advice. But these are not normal times.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Thank you for posting this.
It sums up a lot of what I see as the Obama problem.

For me there's just a disconnect with the Obama approach that I can't reconcile. We're both 1961 cohorts born in the western US so there are some similarities in our backgrounds. But apparently we learned very different conflict resolution skills growing up. I didn't go to an Indonesian madrassa nor get extra rewards like admission to Harvard law school for being good. I had to work my way through public schools and college.

I certainly hope that they didn't teach the so called elite of my age group that they can go though life without conflict if they just give in all of the time. My life experience has been that conflict happens and as you noted if the others involved in the conflict can not be reasoned with then they must be defeated in some way.
And that's as much true in an 8th grade boys gym class full of mudheads that will drop out of high school the minute they turn 16 as it is a Congress full of corporate funded Tea Party types.

I posted about him today--see below.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

In some ways, Obama reminds me of Neville Chamberlain: a good man for a different time. The parallels are exact. Chamberlain is vilified today with the word "appeasement," but in fact appeasement is the right approach most of the time. Another word for it is "compromise." Still another is "diplomacy." Generally speaking, a diplomat or national leader who will not compromise or appease is locking his nation into war. In normal times, Chamberlain's approach would have been the right one and Churchill's completely wrong. But those were not normal times. Every once in a while, one is confronted with an adversary for whom appeasement is the wrong approach, simply because he cannot be appeased. And that describes Adolf Hitler, who was hell-bent on war, come what may. Hitler was the one-in-a-million situation for which Churchill's approach was right and Chamberlain's wrong.

Interesting take, and you may be on to something. Here's the thing -- I think this is a reasonable analogy, but at the same time, we're looking at it from an historical, sociological and generational theory point of view Chamberlain didn't have. I would agree that what is right in one turning may not be right in another. But Chamberlain didn't know these things. Indeed, many historians believe the Third Reich came into power with the help of no-compromise, make-them-suffer policies the WW1 "winners" imposed on Germany as terms of surrender -- that is, 4T "solutions" on a time that wasn't 4T. In other words, THAT may have been the time for a Chamberlain. But in this case, where 1918 and its aftermath is concerned, it was this uncompromising, crush-the-opposition mindset that helped fuel much of the Weimar Republic's economic woes -- the reparations they were made to pay wrecked their economy -- led Germany to desperation, and helped fuel to the rise of Hitler in 1933.

In other words, maybe the defeated Germany in 1918 wasn't as hell bent on starting another war as Hitler was in 1938 when Chamberlain helped "appease" the Nazis for a few months. But Chamberlain presumably didn't have any understanding of saecula or turnings or generational theory. He may not even have known about the cyclical nature of history and how it has tended to repeat every +/- 70-80 years. It seems like Monday morning quarterbacking now, but the point is well taken. Hopefully we can use this insight in the future if nothing else. This may be the time for "unconditional surrender" as may have been when Chamberlain brought non-4T thinking into a budding 4T situation. I'd make a particularly horrible politician today, because this is not my mindset.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

One thing that I don't doubt within the least is that Obama desires what's best for the country.

In the sense that he isn't blatantly self-serving or actively opposing what (he thinks) is best, I agree. In the sense that he is pursuing, not only what he thinks is best, but what objectively really IS best, I don't.

In some ways, Obama reminds me of Neville Chamberlain: a good man for a different time. The parallels are exact. Chamberlain is vilified today with the word "appeasement," but in fact appeasement is the right approach most of the time. Another word for it is "compromise." Still another is "diplomacy." Generally speaking, a diplomat or national leader who will not compromise or appease is locking his nation into war. In normal times, Chamberlain's approach would have been the right one and Churchill's completely wrong. But those were not normal times. Every once in a while, one is confronted with an adversary for whom appeasement is the wrong approach, simply because he cannot be appeased. And that describes Adolf Hitler, who was hell-bent on war, come what may. Hitler was the one-in-a-million situation for which Churchill's approach was right and Chamberlain's wrong.

In our domestic politics, we have a similar situation today. If Obama adopts a less compromising, more combative approach to the Republicans in Congress, he will not get the crucial legislation passed that we need. But if he does not -- he will still not get the crucial legislation passed that we need, because the Republicans cannot be appeased and will not compromise. And he may also lose his reelection bid, putting us in even worse straits as of 2013. With this Congress, war (metaphorically speaking) can't be avoided. Obama needs to stop being Chamberlain and find his inner Churchill. Normally, that's bad advice. But these are not normal times.

So now the Republicans are the equivalent of Hiltler. (Even though "the Republicans" are technically one-half to one-third of our own country.) And Obama is too stupid to realize it. I defer to my original post...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

I swear to god you Boomers won't rest until this country is embroiled in a civil war and the rest of the world takes the opportunity to begin WWIII. I give...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

So now the Republicans are the equivalent of Hiltler. (Even though "the Republicans" are technically one-half to one-third of our own country.) And Obama is too stupid to realize it. I defer to my original post...

Are you interested in a discussion or do you just want to rant and rave? I see no sign that the former is the case. But pretending for a moment that it was . . .

Yes. At this time, the Republicans have this one crucial characteristic in common with Adolf Hitler. (Which does not -- as anyone interested in really thinking as opposed to just ranting would instantly realize -- mean we should expect them to construct gas chambers and crematoria soon. Having one crucial characteristic in common with X is not the same as having all characteristics in common with X.)

Can we get past the miasma that surrounds that man? He was a human being, with certain disagreeable characteristics, who committed certain crimes, and his name is not a magical invocation in any way. He was not the Absolute Embodiment Of Evil. He was a German politician; in that respect all German politicians have something in common with him. He had a mustache. So do I. (Although mine isn't like his.) He lifted Germany out of the Depression (in that respect, Obama should be the "equivalent" of Hitler but unfortunately so far he is not). Like all people, Adolf Hitler was a complex creature, exactly like no one, but similar in some respects to many.

Now, if we may get past that stupidity and start considering Hitler as a man instead of a demon, YES, the Republicans have one thing in common with him: unwillingness to compromise, single-minded fixation on political war, a determination to destroy their opposition. They cannot be appeased. They cannot be reasoned with. Attempting to compromise with them is an exercise in futility. They have one goal with respect to the president: confining him to a single term. It's not even a secret. And so attempting to appease the Republicans in Congress is as futile as attempting to appease Hitler was.

I don't know if I would say that Obama is too "stupid" to realize this. I suspect, rather, that he is too genteel, and too unprepared to accept just what he is dealing with, even if he is smart enough to see it.

As for the civil war, we're already in it. The choices are for one side to fight it, or both. I prefer the latter, since I'm on the one that may not.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

So now the Republicans are the equivalent of Hiltler. (Even though "the Republicans" are technically one-half to one-third of our own country.) And Obama is too stupid to realize it. I defer to my original post...

Are you interested in a discussion or do you just want to rant and rave? I see no sign that the former is the case. But pretending for a moment that it was . . .

Yes. At this time, the Republicans have this one crucial characteristic in common with Adolf Hitler. (Which does not -- as anyone interested in really thinking as opposed to just ranting would instantly realize -- mean we should expect them to construct gas chambers and crematoria soon. Having one crucial characteristic in common with X is not the same as having all characteristics in common with X.)

Can we get past the miasma that surrounds that man? He was a human being, with certain disagreeable characteristics, who committed certain crimes, and his name is not a magical invocation in any way. He was not the Absolute Embodiment Of Evil. He was a German politician; in that respect all German politicians have something in common with him. He had a mustache. So do I. (Although mine isn't like his.) He lifted Germany out of the Depression (in that respect, Obama should be the "equivalent" of Hitler but unfortunately so far he is not). Like all people, Adolf Hitler was a complex creature, exactly like no one, but similar in some respects to many.

Now, if we may get past that stupidity and start considering Hitler as a man instead of a demon, YES, the Republicans have one thing in common with him: unwillingness to compromise, single-minded fixation on political war, a determination to destroy their opposition. They cannot be appeased. They cannot be reasoned with. Attempting to compromise with them is an exercise in futility. They have one goal with respect to the president: confining him to a single term. It's not even a secret. And so attempting to appease the Republicans in Congress is as futile as attempting to appease Hitler was.

I don't know if I would say that Obama is too "stupid" to realize this. I suspect, rather, that he is too genteel, and too unprepared to accept just what he is dealing with, even if he is smart enough to see it.

As for the civil war, we're already in it. The choices are for one side to fight it, or both. I prefer the latter, since I'm on the one that may not.

You know what Brian, you've opened my eyes. I see the light. Obama, the President of the United States is a---Nope, wait. Sorry, the spell broke. I still think Obama is smarter than you.

P.S. Republicans are still one-half to one-third of our own country. So the analogy doesn't apply.

In other words, the answer to my question above is "no." You are not interested in a discussion and only want to rant. Duly noted, and I shall simply ignore you in the future.

Whatever makes you happy. Someone else may see the "crazy" in calling our own people Hitler and Obama the idiot fool for not seeing it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

In other words, the answer to my question above is "no." You are not interested in a discussion and only want to rant. Duly noted, and I shall simply ignore you in the future.