djolds1 wrote:The Pro-Slavery faction thought the same when the American Whig Party imploded in 1856. Pro-Slavery won its greatest victory (the Dred Scott Decision) in 1857. Eight years after 1856, Pro-Slavery was extinct.
I would suggest that this is a poor example to use.
As far as the timing goes, it is the entirely proper model to use.
I date the Crisis to 2008 - 3 years after Strauss & Howe's prediction.
Diogenes wrote:
djolds1 wrote:I don't see any mass violence in the current day - there are no remaining centers of competing martial legitimacy vs the American Federal government. But the smashing victory of a semi-new faction is possible. The US was essentially a 1.5 Party country 1933-1994, with the terminal decline of the 1.5 Party model starting ~1975.
As George Will said, (and I paraphrase) "The first duty of government is to establish and maintain a monopoly regarding the use of violence. "
Which is why I see the current Crisis as more of a cross between 1933 and 1860, but I don't think bureaucratic innovation will be the "civil savior" this time - the Blue Model is in the midst of terminal failure. Parallel, from a vitalist perspective, Progressivism is "exhausted" and reduced to nothing more than rear-guard defense of 50 to 80 year old failing bureaucracies and the proclamation of ancient but unrealized dreams (bureaucratic centralized health care). The Left has lost sight of its Ends, its mission, and is clinging desperately to the long-achieved Means. Means that cannot be afforded any longer.
The Wave of Future-Past does not shape the Future.
Best case is a Populist (Tea Party/ partial Occupy) victory; middle case is the Lords of the Too Big To Fail Firms become the Robber Barons of the next 80 years. Given how badly out of control the American Gini coefficient is, odds to the middle case.
choff wrote:I've often wondered, in the case of the American Civil War, if it would not have cost the north far less simply to offer to purchase all the slaves of the south. That, and make adjustments to tariffs and trade policies harming the southern economy.
If the north had made a very generous financial offer that was accepted by the southern states both history and attitudes would be very different today. How would that stack up against both the financial price and emnity of the war?
And then what?
They sell off the slaves, and 'instantly' change the entire economic model? Probably not. It also does nothing to curb the introduction of new slaves to fill the vacuum...
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
choff wrote:I've often wondered, in the case of the American Civil War, if it would not have cost the north far less simply to offer to purchase all the slaves of the south. That, and make adjustments to tariffs and trade policies harming the southern economy.
If the north had made a very generous financial offer that was accepted by the southern states both history and attitudes would be very different today. How would that stack up against both the financial price and emnity of the war?
And then what?
They sell off the slaves, and 'instantly' change the entire economic model? Probably not. It also does nothing to curb the introduction of new slaves to fill the vacuum...
I've read essays from the period reflecting on how it would be impossible to end slavery because compensating the owners for the loss of their property was fiscally impossible.
Solution? Short circuit the entire objection. Works for a lot of "intractable" problems.
choff wrote:I've often wondered, in the case of the American Civil War, if it would not have cost the north far less simply to offer to purchase all the slaves of the south. That, and make adjustments to tariffs and trade policies harming the southern economy.
If the north had made a very generous financial offer that was accepted by the southern states both history and attitudes would be very different today. How would that stack up against both the financial price and emnity of the war?
And then what?
They sell off the slaves, and 'instantly' change the entire economic model? Probably not. It also does nothing to curb the introduction of new slaves to fill the vacuum...
A Ban on the importation of new slaves was specifically permitted by the U.S. Constitution when it was created in 1787. It only allowed for the slave trade to continue up till 1808.
Article I, section 9.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Regarding the larger point, I do recall seeing some information that this idea had been considered, (Federal Government buying all the slaves) but I no longer recall what was the problem with it. Could it have cost more than the war? Hard to see how. Of course at the time they didn't know they were going to have a war.
choff wrote:Yeah, it took a few wars before people figured out they're not all over by Christmas, and that they aren't any fun, now we know.
Anybody who thinks a war should be entered into lightly is a fool. It should be avoided if at all possible.
I have often wondered how history might have been different if the pompous and arrogant Southerners in South Carolina had simply endured the Union Presence at Fort Sumter.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
choff wrote:Yeah, it took a few wars before people figured out they're not all over by Christmas, and that they aren't any fun, now we know.
No worries. We will forget again.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
I watched a Marx brothers comedy from the thirties where they all sang a song about how much fun war is. It really took until Vietnam being televised to finally elimanate jingoism.
Barack Obama is just as ridiculous as John Kerry, or John Edwards, or Joe Biden, or Gary Hart,
... Bush, Reagan (was a good president, but he still was an actor).
I think that you are being a bit unfair here.
Believe me that I am not defending Diogenes list but his issue was experience and the two you list were both multi-term Governors of very large states. Thinking of an eight year Governor of California as simply an actor is a little bit unfair - don't you think.
The real issue is Obama's experience, which I agree was amazingly lacking going into his first term. But that ship has passed. Clearly experience is no longer an issue for him. Now, there is only the questions of competency and his politics. Continuing to harp on his prior lack of experience is silly.
He had more charisma then Hillary and garnered more support from the left side during the primary's. The moderate swing voters as a whole have had enough of Bush's bullsh!t over the past 8 years and didn't want another President who was a puppet for their party's agenda.
Thus the USA got Obama, an inexperienced moderate liberal with no strings attached. To green (as in the FNG) to have been bough by special interest groups or roped into liberal political agendas. Yet also without political power and backing of his own, he is completely at the mercy of congress to get anything done and has no dirt / connections to force votes from people.
Currently the Republicans hate him due to him being a Dem, and the Dems hate him due to him being uncontrollable. A President disliked by both political parties is got to be doing something right.
Anyhow back to the bashing and political rhetoric.
Skipjack wrote:
... Bush, Reagan (was a good president, but he still was an actor).
I think that you are being a bit unfair here.
Believe me that I am not defending Diogenes list but his issue was experience and the two you list were both multi-term Governors of very large states. Thinking of an eight year Governor of California as simply an actor is a little bit unfair - don't you think.
The real issue is Obama's experience, which I agree was amazingly lacking going into his first term. But that ship has passed. Clearly experience is no longer an issue for him. Now, there is only the questions of competency and his politics. Continuing to harp on his prior lack of experience is silly.
He had more charisma then Hillary and garnered more support from the left side during the primary's. The moderate swing voters as a whole have had enough of Bush's bullsh!t over the past 8 years and didn't want another President who was a puppet for their party's agenda.
Thus the USA got Obama, an inexperienced moderate liberal with no strings attached. To green (as in the FNG) to have been bough by special interest groups or roped into liberal political agendas. Yet also without political power and backing of his own, he is completely at the mercy of congress to get anything done and has no dirt / connections to force votes from people.
Currently the Republicans hate him due to him being a Dem, and the Dems hate him due to him being uncontrollable. A President disliked by both political parties is got to be doing something right.
Anyhow back to the bashing and political rhetoric.
Hmmm... bashing? Rhetoric? For saying that being a multi-term Governor qualifies as experience?
It's not like I likened Republicans to genocidal Nazis or anything. I mean, that would really be out of line.
choff wrote:I watched a Marx brothers comedy from the thirties where they all sang a song about how much fun war is. It really took until Vietnam being televised to finally elimanate jingoism.
I'm betting it was "Duck Soup".
I absolutely LOVE the Marx Brothers. Karl Marx? Not so much.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Skipjack wrote:
... Bush, Reagan (was a good president, but he still was an actor).
I think that you are being a bit unfair here.
Believe me that I am not defending Diogenes list but his issue was experience and the two you list were both multi-term Governors of very large states. Thinking of an eight year Governor of California as simply an actor is a little bit unfair - don't you think.
The real issue is Obama's experience, which I agree was amazingly lacking going into his first term. But that ship has passed. Clearly experience is no longer an issue for him. Now, there is only the questions of competency and his politics. Continuing to harp on his prior lack of experience is silly.
He had more charisma then Hillary and garnered more support from the left side during the primary's. The moderate swing voters as a whole have had enough of Bush's bullsh!t over the past 8 years and didn't want another President who was a puppet for their party's agenda.
Thus the USA got Obama, an inexperienced moderate liberal with no strings attached. To green (as in the FNG) to have been bough by special interest groups or roped into liberal political agendas. Yet also without political power and backing of his own, he is completely at the mercy of congress to get anything done and has no dirt / connections to force votes from people.
Currently the Republicans hate him due to him being a Dem, and the Dems hate him due to him being uncontrollable. A President disliked by both political parties is got to be doing something right.
Anyhow back to the bashing and political rhetoric.
The opinions of others often amaze me. We, as a society, have simply lost the ability to pay attention and likewise the ability to reason.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
seedload wrote:
Hmmm... bashing? Rhetoric? For saying that being a multi-term Governor qualifies as experience?
It's not like I likened Republicans to genocidal Nazis or anything. I mean, that would really be out of line.
I think it serves the interest of humanity better if you refer to them as the National Socialist German workers party. ( Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)
It makes it clearer what Ideology they expressed.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
choff wrote:I watched a Marx brothers comedy from the thirties where they all sang a song about how much fun war is. It really took until Vietnam being televised to finally elimanate jingoism.
I'm betting it was "Duck Soup".
I absolutely LOVE the Marx Brothers. Karl Marx? Not so much.
That looks like the one, funny thing about Karl, he lived in England at a time and place where if you wrote a book the establishment didn't like you never got published.
choff wrote:I watched a Marx brothers comedy from the thirties where they all sang a song about how much fun war is. It really took until Vietnam being televised to finally eliminate jingoism.
The war-fighting generation sees the hell firsthand, the kids live with the consequences, and the grandkids romanticize the grandparents.
