Originally Posted by ASB65

I watched the entire debate last night and I have to say that it was downright frightening to me. Now maybe I was misinterpreting what they were saying and perhaps someone else would come away with a different impression than me, but here is my analysis on it.

The debate was on the economy and I would say that they all were pretty in agreement with each other on just about every point. No real debate going on, just a bunch of people nodding their heads and saying, "Yep, I agree with what he said." The main take away from their arguments are these points.

Their main plan to create job growth is to lower taxes even more on the corporations. I kept hearing over and over again, "We need to let the market do it's thing." They also want less regulations on corporations and Wall Street. They talked quite a bit less regulations. Here is their jobs plan in a nutshell. Give the corporations even more money and hope that they decide to reinvest it jobs....But I kept thinking, Umm, they already are making big profits and they aren't doing that now, so how is giving them even more money suddenly going to make them change the way they do business. Maybe we just haven't asked them nicely enough...And on the deregulations thing, what the hell? We are just suppose to let Wall Street and corporations do whatever they want to and have no rules at all. Isn't that what got us into this mess in the first place?

On housing...Let it crash and burn. No help to anyone under any circumstances. Hum, I guess we are going to need more homeless shelters. However, since they don't want government to spend any money, then I guess there probably is not going to be the money to build them. Perhaps people are suppose to sleep in tents...Wait a minute. That won't work. People get arrested for sleeping in tents on public property.

On student loan debt....Oh, this was my favorite one...Ron Paul got this question first. Basically here is Ron Paul's solution. Stop giving students loans. If they don't have a loan, then they won't have worry about being in debt. Besides, Ron Paul said, "They are getting these loans so they stay in school longer instead of going out and getting a job." Newt Gringrich got the follow up to this question and was asked how students were going to pay for college without loans. Here was Newt's answer. Get a part-time job working 20 hours a week during the school year and then get a full time job during the summer months. Well, I suppose that might work, if there were jobs!...Oh that's right, I forgot. The corporations are going to start handing them out left and right once they have more, more, more money and no rules.

The audience clapped and cheered all this nonsense. Which was a equally confusing to me. Either they are living in an alternate universe or I am.

If it's a universe where cutting taxes on a corporation or person is giving them money, instead of merely refraining from taking what they have, then I'd say it's you. You might also be unaware (although I doubt it if you watched a Republican debate) that the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

As for the rest of the world, there is no major nation whose attitudes at the moment are remotely similar to ours. Certainly not in Europe. There are no European politicians, none, talking like our Republicans.

Europe is moving somewhat to the right, it just means something different there (and in each individual country) than what it means here.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

A generation IS an impersonal force. The idea that their theory upholds the idea of INDIVIDUALS creating history represents a complete misunderstanding of it.

I said this above, and I think I want to expand on it a bit. One thing I've noticed about the gen-cycle theory is that it can function like a Rorschach test in which some people see what they want to see. The basic idea of the theory is that Turnings and generations cause each other. It is an events-caused-by-the-masses theory, because that's what a generation is: a great mass of people, all born within a certain span of years. When we say that our current Crisis era is driven by Boomers entering elderhood, Xers entering midlife, and Millennials coming of age, that has to be understood as a mass phenomenon, the effect, not of particular individual Boomers, Xers, or Millennials entering their respective phases of life, but of the great mass of Boomers, Xers, and Millennials doing so.

It is consistent, and arguable (given that the theory has never been proven to be true), that individuals, particularly political leaders, drive and determine the events of history because Strauss and Howe were wrong. But it is not consistent, not rational, and in no way arguable that individuals, particularly political leaders, drive and determine the events of history because Strauss and Howe were right. If they were right, then that is NOT true -- because their theory holds the exact opposite.

If the gen-cycle theory is right, then it is impossible to determine the boundaries of a generation by picking out prominent individuals near the likely boundary and observing whether they fit one description or another.

If the gen-cycle theory is right, then the broad course of events will happen in a certain way regardless of what political leadership tries to do; the leadership must act within the bounds of what is politically possible, and that is determined by the character of the generations entering elderhood, midlife, and young adulthood.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If the gen-cycle theory is right, then the broad course of events will happen in a certain way regardless of what political leadership tries to do; the leadership must act within the bounds of what is politically possible, and that is determined by the character of the generations entering elderhood, midlife, and young adulthood.

That's what I am saying. Leaders are akin to someone on the ocean with just a paddle. Sure, they can move about a few strokes here or there, but mainly the swells and currents are in control.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

That's what I am saying. Leaders are akin to someone on the ocean with just a paddle. Sure, they can move about a few strokes here or there, but mainly the swells and currents are in control.

Everyone is entitled to his opinion under the Constitution. That is not, however, what Strauss and Howe said at all. They assigned absolutely critical roles to individual leaders--and rightly so.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Brian Rush is entitled to his opinion under the Constitution. That is not, however, what Strauss and Howe said at all. They assigned absolutely critical roles to individual leaders--and rightly so.

No, they did not. Anymore than they ever expressed the idea of the "Gray Champion" as national leader, which you once wrongly attributed to them on another thread.

All of their descriptions of what happened with the generations in prior Turnings always took the form of general statements about how MOST of the generation behaved, and any individual behavior described was a TYPICAL EXAMPLE of that. I defy anyone to find any statement anywhere in Generations or The Fourth Turning to the effect of "Lincoln/Roosevelt/whoever did X, and that is why Y happened." Not that there aren't, on some at least minor level, true statements of this sort that could be made, but nowhere in their books did Strauss and Howe make them -- because that is not what they were trying to say. They were talking about the way that generations, not individuals, drive history.

There is really no other interpretation possible that is not a complete distortion of what they were saying. If you want to believe in and promote a hero-driven model of history, which seems to be the case, fine. But that means you disagree quite sharply with Strauss and Howe. Because they were saying just the opposite.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Everyone is entitled to his opinion under the Constitution. That is not, however, what Strauss and Howe said at all. They assigned absolutely critical roles to individual leaders--and rightly so.

Big wheel again. If leaders were that important, we wouldn't have the turnings, we'd have random linear events.

Leaders can make us more or less comfortable and can help us secure victory (or not) in a crisis.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I said this above, and I think I want to expand on it a bit. One thing I've noticed about the gen-cycle theory is that it can function like a Rorschach test in which some people see what they want to see.

If you're becoming aware of that possibility, you might be on the verge of a breakthrough. Considering that you've been the ultimate example of it on this forum for a long time.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If you're becoming aware of that possibility, you might be on the verge of a breakthrough. Considering that you've been the ultimate example of it on this forum for a long time.

[Scorn.] Even David understand the theory better than you do.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Big wheel again. If leaders were that important, we wouldn't have the turnings, we'd have random linear events.

Leaders can make us more or less comfortable and can help us secure victory (or not) in a crisis.

There's a saying that people get the leaders they deserve. At least theoretically in a democracy, the leaders are elevated to their positions by the people. Even in a non-democratic system, the leaders must respond to the people to some degree. Maybe by cracking down on freedoms, but still it's a response.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

[Scorn.] Even David understand the theory better than you do.

He and I agree to a large extent about how things are playing out. For you to claim that anyone who disagrees with you "doesn't understand the theory" is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Big wheel again. If leaders were that important, we wouldn't have the turnings, we'd have random linear events.

Leaders can make us more or less comfortable and can help us secure victory (or not) in a crisis.

Or non-random linear events. Yes. Individual leader characteristics don't recur. Either we recognize the mechanism behind the cycle of generations and Turnings, or we abandon the theory. There's really no third option. It's just ridiculous to suppose, as David did earlier, that we will see the end of the 4T if the Democrats win next year's election but its continuation if the Republicans win; that's not the kind of thing that shapes and drives a Turning. Which side wins will certainly make a difference, but the 4T will continue for years yet regardless. Either that, or the theory is wrong and we can stop talking about Crisis eras and all that.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

He and I agree to a large extent about how things are playing out. For you to claim that anyone who disagrees with you "doesn't understand the theory" is ridiculous.

Someone may disagree with me without misunderstanding the theory and there are those on this forum who do. You and David don't understand it, not because you disagree with me, but because he thinks it is compatible with a hero-driven explanation of history which it obviously isn't, while you think it is compatible with a complete revision of history and denial of obvious facts, which it even more obviously isn't.

As for the two of you agreeing, you do so for very comparable and completely irrational reasons. You believe what you want to be true, and he believes what he fears is true. Those happen to be the same thing because you are polar opposites in your political value systems. Both of you are lost in a fog and unable to see what IS true.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If it's a universe where cutting taxes on a corporation or person is giving them money, instead of merely refraining from taking what they have, then I'd say it's you. You might also be unaware (although I doubt it if you watched a Republican debate) that the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

You doubt I watched it? OMG, JPT. Now I'm not only a "far left liberal" but now I'm also liar. Unbelievable.

If I hadn't watched the debate then how did I know how the candidates responded to the questions? Maybe I'm psychic.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The political power of the southern elites was not broken. This idea of "solving the problems that had to be solved" is pure tautology.

Their economic power was only damaged, or course, but their ability to control national politics in the same way as they did before the Civil War was eliminated and a high-tarriff, pro-industry, pro-small-farmer economic regime imposed by the Republicans.

It is not tautological because some issues are critical at the time and some are not. Labor rights had not become a significant enough issue in the 1850s.

Originally Posted by ASB65

You doubt I watched it? OMG, JPT. Now I'm not only a "far left liberal" but now I'm also liar. Unbelievable.

If I hadn't watched the debate then how did I know how the candidates responded to the questions? Maybe I'm psychic.

You misread my post. What I said is that if you watched the debate, I doubt you are unaware that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, since the Republican candidates almost always mention it.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Everyone is entitled to his opinion under the Constitution. That is not, however, what Strauss and Howe said at all. They assigned absolutely critical roles to individual leaders--and rightly so.

Wow.

I've read their stuff. Where the hell did they say anything like that?

Originally Posted by Odin

Their economic power was only damaged, or course, but their ability to control national politics in the same way as they did before the Civil War was eliminated and a high-tarriff, pro-industry, pro-small-farmer economic regime imposed by the Republicans.

It is not tautological because some issues are critical at the time and some are not. Labor rights had not become a significant enough issue in the 1850s.

When did labor rights stop being a significant issue, Odin? Because they've been eroding steadily for decades.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

You misread my post. What I said is that if you watched the debate, I doubt you are unaware that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, since the Republican candidates almost always mention it.

I heard that part. I also know that most of the corporations are making really good profits now and the stock market is almost to the levels it was before the crash. So our corporations aren't exactly hurting now, yet our unemployment rate remains stubbornly high. So obviously, just making sure the companies are making lots and lots of money isn't the solution to our jobs problem.

Plus even if the tax rates are higher, corporations get lots and lots of deductions that bring down the actual amount of taxes they end up paying. There are all kinds of loopholes in the tax code. For example, GE paid zero taxes last year. If you say the rate on corporations is 35 percent, very few end up paying that amount because of deductions and loopholes.

I do agree that we need to have business friendly policies. I just don't think lowering taxes on corporations is the only answer to the job crisis we have in this country. But that seems to the only plan the Republicans have.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

When did labor rights stop being a significant issue, Odin? Because they've been eroding steadily for decades.

The 1850s were a total of 16 decade ago. Labor rights have not been eroding throughout those 160 years.

What Odin said related to when they BEGAN to be a significant issue, not when they ceased to be one.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I said this above, and I think I want to expand on it a bit. One thing I've noticed about the gen-cycle theory is that it can function like a Rorschach test in which some people see what they want to see. The basic idea of the theory is that Turnings and generations cause each other. It is an events-caused-by-the-masses theory, because that's what a generation is: a great mass of people, all born within a certain span of years. When we say that our current Crisis era is driven by Boomers entering elderhood, Xers entering midlife, and Millennials coming of age, that has to be understood as a mass phenomenon, the effect, not of particular individual Boomers, Xers, or Millennials entering their respective phases of life, but of the great mass of Boomers, Xers, and Millennials doing so.

It is consistent, and arguable (given that the theory has never been proven to be true), that individuals, particularly political leaders, drive and determine the events of history because Strauss and Howe were wrong. But it is not consistent, not rational, and in no way arguable that individuals, particularly political leaders, drive and determine the events of history because Strauss and Howe were right. If they were right, then that is NOT true -- because their theory holds the exact opposite.

If the gen-cycle theory is right, then it is impossible to determine the boundaries of a generation by picking out prominent individuals near the likely boundary and observing whether they fit one description or another.

If the gen-cycle theory is right, then the broad course of events will happen in a certain way regardless of what political leadership tries to do; the leadership must act within the bounds of what is politically possible, and that is determined by the character of the generations entering elderhood, midlife, and young adulthood.

Many of us old-timers have had a number of years to digest the theory and the better part of a Turning to test it out. While agreeing with you on what the S&H theory actually says, I'm curious as to where you stand. Were they right? Or is it still too soon to know for sure?

Furthermore, how significant *are* individuals? What about this guy, for instance? Did he single-handedly put history on a new course?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Many of us old-timers have had a number of years to digest the theory and the better part of a Turning to test it out. While agreeing with you on what the S&H theory actually says, I'm curious as to where you stand. Were they right? Or is it still too soon to know for sure?

I'm convinced they were right. I've been convinced of that for some time, since the Millennials started coming of age. That we entered what seems obviously a 4T pretty much on schedule, that we now see progressive agitation in the streets, that the real issues are now being recognized and talked about -- even though we still seem unable to DO anything about them (par for the course unfortunately) -- everything is going within the bounds of what the theory would predict.

Furthermore, how significant *are* individuals? What about this guy, for instance? Did he single-handedly put history on a new course?

Absolutely not. I suggest reading a couple of books by Barbara Tuchman on that period of history: The Proud Tower which is about pre-WWI Europe, and The Guns of August, which is about the onset of the war. All the major powers of Europe were arming and spoiling for a fight. The British Empire was overextended, Germany was a rising power wanting to test herself militarily, France was bitter and angry at Germany over 1870, Austria was on the way down and worried about everything, all of Europe was wound tight as a drum. Any spark could have set off the conflagration. If the Archduke had not been assassinated, some other damned thing would have happened.

This relates to something I remember, although not word for word (I'll do my best) from The Fourth Turning about our own 1T/2T boundary: "Had Oswald missed, the specifics would have been different, but the saeculum would still have carved its path. The Second Turning would have come regardless. It was time."

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I'm convinced they were right. I've been convinced of that for some time, since the Millennials started coming of age. That we entered what seems obviously a 4T pretty much on schedule, that we now see progressive agitation in the streets, that the real issues are now being recognized and talked about -- even though we still seem unable to DO anything about them (par for the course unfortunately) -- everything is going within the bounds of what the theory would predict.

I'm inclined to agree.

Absolutely not. I suggest reading a couple of books by Barbara Tuchman on that period of history: The Proud Tower which is about pre-WWI Europe, and The Guns of August, which is about the onset of the war. All the major powers of Europe were arming and spoiling for a fight. The British Empire was overextended, Germany was a rising power wanting to test herself militarily, France was bitter and angry at Germany over 1870, Austria was on the way down and worried about everything, all of Europe was wound tight as a drum. Any spark could have set off the conflagration. If the Archduke had not been assassinated, some other damned thing would have happened.

This relates to something I remember, although not word for word (I'll do my best) from The Fourth Turning about our own 1T/2T boundary: "Had Oswald missed, the specifics would have been different, but the saeculum would still have carved its path. The Second Turning would have come regardless. It was time."

I started The Guns of August once but got bogged down and never picked it up again. Maybe if I start with The Proud Tower, it might go easier. Thanks for the suggestion.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Many of us old-timers have had a number of years to digest the theory and the better part of a Turning to test it out. While agreeing with you on what the S&H theory actually says, I'm curious as to where you stand. Were they right? Or is it still too soon to know for sure?

Furthermore, how significant *are* individuals? What about this guy, for instance? Did he single-handedly put history on a new course?

Well, these days everybody's got the right...

Individuals have more of an influence in a 3Ting IMO because that's a time we celebrate unbridled individualism. Individuals aren't so important in a 1Ting, where social units & groups are more influential because that's a time we celebrate a unified society. Awakenings & Crises are times of transitions between these troughs and peaks. With individuals having less of an effect over the course of a Crisis, while individuals having more of an effect over the course of an Awakening.

~Chas'88

Link takes you to a YouTube clip that'll make the sentence transform from dull to humorous.

In America's new favorite reality TV show, the GOP Presidential race, we are waiting to see who will be the next person to get thrown of the island.

I am going with Herb Cain, although Huntsman and Perry can't be far behind. I think Cain will withdraw before the first primary. He is imploding daily.

I'd like Perry to have a few drinks before the next debate, so we can have maple syrup hugging, Paul Lynde version of Perry.