• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

So 20 years from now...

True. The middle was once the solid base of the Democrat party. The blue collar working middle class like auto workers, coal miners, steel workers, etc. etc. were solid Democrat and were the block that kept Democrats in control of Congress for something like sixty years. The Democrat party was their main voice, representatives, and loyal support until recent history. Now the Democrat leadership see them as gun toting, bible thumping, low class, losers or "deplorables" according to Hillary. For some reason Democrats decided to replace them with immigrants, Silicon Valley, and LGBQT. Trump saw the hole and listened to the concerns of the old Democrat base of blue collar workers which gave him West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc.

I agree that Trump did a good job at getting the white middle and working class. But question: why is that HRC gets hammered for calling Trump supports deplorables - one time. She did it one time. I'm sorry that the big meanie hurt some white people's feelings. I hear Trump insulting Indians every single day with his "Pocahontas" crap. He insults women, disabled people, Mexicans, journalists, and etc every single day. Why the double standard?
It started with your questioning Democrats reversing the loosing by ceding the middle class. They already had and my post was a short story of how they had done it. Obama dismissed them with his description of them clutching their guns and Bibles, telling them that this is the new reality that their jobs are gone and they are not coming back so just get over it. Increasing regulatory pressure which closed several steel mills and coal mines. etc. etc. I'm sure you know all the loss of manufacturing and industry, and loss of blue collar jobs. A real politically dumb speech was Hillary in Pennsylvania (a major coal producing state) boasting that she would shut down the coal industry (which I think was a major reason she lost the state). There was nothing but dismissal of the concerns of blue collar workers during the campaign. It was just that her "deplorables" so perfectly seemed to sum up the Democrat party's leadership's image of blue collar workers. In effect, to answer your original question the Democrat leadership has already ceded the middle class to the Republican party.

Well there are many middle class people like me who will vote. You may be right, but I wouldn't get too high and mighty yet. Obama beat two separate very popular republicans. Trump won one of the closest elections in history (losing the popular vote). I'd give it a couple more elections before I'd appoint the republicans the protector the veil!
 
It started with your questioning Democrats reversing the loosing by ceding the middle class. They already had and my post was a short story of how they had done it. Obama dismissed them with his description of them clutching their guns and Bibles, telling them that this is the new reality that their jobs are gone and they are not coming back so just get over it. Increasing regulatory pressure which closed several steel mills and coal mines. etc. etc. I'm sure you know all the loss of manufacturing and industry, and loss of blue collar jobs. A real politically dumb speech was Hillary in Pennsylvania (a major coal producing state) boasting that she would shut down the coal industry (which I think was a major reason she lost the state). There was nothing but dismissal of the concerns of blue collar workers during the campaign. It was just that her "deplorables" so perfectly seemed to sum up the Democrat party's leadership's image of blue collar workers. In effect, to answer your original question the Democrat leadership has already ceded the middle class to the Republican party.

Well there are many middle class people like me who will vote. You may be right, but I wouldn't get too high and mighty yet. Obama beat two separate very popular republicans. Trump won one of the closest elections in history (losing the popular vote). I'd give it a couple more elections before I'd appoint the republicans the protector the veil!
WTF are you talking about with the "high and mighty". I just went over the reasons the Democrats lost that demographic. You agree that is the reason. So where the fuck are you coming from with that attitude and posturing?

I didn't vote for Trump - I am not praising Trump - not that it is any of your fucking business.
 
It started with your questioning Democrats reversing the loosing by ceding the middle class. They already had and my post was a short story of how they had done it. Obama dismissed them with his description of them clutching their guns and Bibles, telling them that this is the new reality that their jobs are gone and they are not coming back so just get over it. Increasing regulatory pressure which closed several steel mills and coal mines. etc. etc. I'm sure you know all the loss of manufacturing and industry, and loss of blue collar jobs. A real politically dumb speech was Hillary in Pennsylvania (a major coal producing state) boasting that she would shut down the coal industry (which I think was a major reason she lost the state). There was nothing but dismissal of the concerns of blue collar workers during the campaign. It was just that her "deplorables" so perfectly seemed to sum up the Democrat party's leadership's image of blue collar workers. In effect, to answer your original question the Democrat leadership has already ceded the middle class to the Republican party.

Well there are many middle class people like me who will vote. You may be right, but I wouldn't get too high and mighty yet. Obama beat two separate very popular republicans. Trump won one of the closest elections in history (losing the popular vote). I'd give it a couple more elections before I'd appoint the republicans the protector the veil!
WTF are you talking about "high and mighty". I just went over the reasons the Democrats lost that demographic. You agree that is the reason. So where the fuck are you coming from with that attitude and posturing?

I didn't vote for Trump - I am not praising Trump - not that it is any of your fucking business.

I'm sorry. I really didn't mean to insult you. I'm just saying that I wouldn't give up on the dems yet. They lost one badly contended race. I wouldn't write them off yet. I think that Trump is implementing many policies that will hurt the middle class and cost an election down the road.
 
Peter Turchin's curves followed each other rather well, and their overall shape was:

1800: 0.4
(integrative phase)
1824: 0.8 - Era of Good Feelings
(disintegrative phase)
1904: -1.4 - Gilded Age bottoming out
(integrative phase)
1960: 1.3 - Eisenhower/Kennedy era
(disintegrative phase)
2000: -0.3
(disintegrative phase continues)

The first disintegrative phase started with Andrew Jackson's presidency, a Schlesinger liberal phase, and by the 1850's, the Whig Party was falling apart. Several parties emerged then, with the Republican Party becoming the winner. In the late 1850's, Southerners were starting to talk about secession, and some Mid-Atlantic politicians were talking about creating a Mid-Atlantic "Central Confederacy" between New England and the Deep South. Mayor Fernando Wood of New York City also talked about secession, making his city the Free City of Tri-Insula, after its three islands.

But then seceding Southerners attacked Fort Sumter, and that was the end of such talk. The Civil War ended with the Southern plantation aristocracy destroyed and slavery ended. Southern blacks had a few years of good status in Reconstruction. But then the North lost interest in helping them and the South did a Redemption backlash against them, terrorizing them into submission. This ended the Civil-War liberal period and started the Gilded Age. It then became the longest conservative period to date.

Business leaders loved all the immigrants that they got, because those immigrants forced down wages by supply and demand, and made it easy to deal with pesky strikers.

The next integrative phase started a bit after the turn of the twentieth century, in the Progressive movement. Fear of revolutionaries and anarchists among immigrants led to severe immigration restriction in the 1920's, and FDR's response to the Great Depression was the New Deal. He was very cautious, and it took World War II to provoke a mobilization big enough to end it. Elites took various measures to restrict their numbers, like the American Medical Association restricting how many new doctors and elite universities trying to accept only White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Though Jews often did very well in school, they often were not admitted because they were supposedly not well-rounded. Like the first integrative phase, the second one ended in a conservative period. The Eisenhower Era was a sort of Era of Good Feelings II.

Like the first disintegrative period, the second one started with a liberal period -- Sixties radicalism. It ended in the late 1970's, and it was succeeded by a conservative period, Gilded Age II. The end of the Sixties reform period meant that the Equal Rights Amendment almost but did not quite make it into the US Constitution, and also that abortion would become a major political battleground over the next 40 years with no end in sight.
 
The second Gilded Age has some features in common with the first, like high immigration and high economic inequality.

As to illegal immigration, I suspect that a lot of officialdom looks the other way at it because that is what many business leaders want -- like all the immigration the first time around. I personally think that illegal immigrants are gate crashers, but I dislike the xenophobia and the bigotry of so many opponents of it. Especially opponents of it who don't draw a very sharp line between illegal and legal immigration. The Trump Administration has also distinguished itself with sheer cruelty toward asylum seekers -- I think that some Trump staffers deserve being sent to asylums for the criminally insane for that.

As to economic inequality, it would not be much of a problem except for the attitude of all too many of the economic elite and their sycophants that most other people are undeserving of their incomes. Thus, the hostility to labor unions and the smug complacency of all too many people as many others' incomes get forced down. When their heroes come after them, they will discover that they have alienated anyone who could possibly help them.

Capitalism apologists will remind us that it is always possible to create more wealth. But they ignore the circumstances under which most wealth is created, and they ignore the question of distribution -- maybe because they like it distributed to those on top of business hierarchies, with those people and only those people then having any say as to where it goes next. That may explain their hostility to labor unions and workers' cooperatives -- they treat such organizations as insubordination.
 
Great economic inequality has debilitating economic effects, like causing real-estate bubbles that price many middle-class people out of the housing market. The Fountainhead: Poor Doors | Adam Lee:
Some of the world’s most expensive cities are witnessing a trend: new residences get snapped up as fast as they’re built, but not for anyone to live in. They’re being bought by ultra-rich elites who care about the properties only as investments to flip later. In the meantime, they’re left unoccupied.

Many of the buyers are oligarchs from autocratic and corruption-plagued countries like Russia, China or Saudi Arabia. Rather than keep their money where it could be seized at the whim of the authorities, they park it in real estate in foreign nations with a stronger rule of law than their own. Expensive real estate is even better for the purpose, since it lets them squirrel away more cash. New York City and London have been particularly plagued by this trend, as have Toronto and Vancouver.
It also includes greater ease in buying influence from politicians. US right-wingers' demonization of George Soros may reflect their awareness of the dependence of the US Republican Party on the likes of the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and the Mercer family. The US Democratic Party is not much better, sad to say.

I recall an article about a businesswoman who grumbled that Republican politicians don't listen very much to her because they instead listen to much bigger donors.
 
Returning to the issue of political violence, a two-generation cycle is also evident in the United States's history. There were bursts of political violence around 1870, 1920, and 1970, though not around 1820 -- people may have felt too good for that back then.

This suggests that the US is due for another outbreak of political violence around 2020, and we may already be seeing some of that, like the Proud Boys. Combined with being in a disintegrative phase, this could be very big trouble.


Turning to foreign policy, US History Cycles - Extroverted vs. Introverted foreign policy describes Frank Klingberg's work on foreign-policy cycles, drawing from politicians' speeches, naval budgets, and territorial acquisitions. As with the other cycles, each phase is self-limiting. Introverted phases end as a result of unmet challenges from other nations, whether real or perceived, while extroverted phases end as a result of burnout from big wars.

The US started out as introverted, because fighting for independence was a lot for it, I'm sure. Then an undeclared naval war with France provoked an extroverted period that ended with the War of 1812. Then two decades of introversion that involved confrontation with South Carolina of its would-be nullification of some tariffs, whether to admit Texas being a big issue, and being unwilling to help the Canadian rebels in the early 1830's. This was followed by an extroverted period with annexations of Texas and the Oregon Territory, the Mexican War, and then the Civil War. Then an introverted period that involved passing on the Europeans' Scramble for Africa. Then an extroverted period that started with fighting Spain in Cuba and the Philippines, and that ended in World War I. The resulting introversion was strong enough to keep the US out of the League of Nations. But the rise of the Axis powers doomed it, though it has a last gasp in the form of the America First movement. On December 7, 1941, Japan ended it by attacking Pearl Harbor, and the US became extroverted again. Every present member but one of the House voted to declare war on Japan, as did every present member of the Senate.

This extroversion lasted through the early decades of the Cold War, with the US being involved in Korea and Vietnam. According to Peter Klingberg and some others, this extroversion ended around 1968 or so, with the US turning the fighting of the Vietnam War over to South Vietnam, and also improving relations with the Soviet Union -- the détente era. Jimmy Carter continued the trend by issuing a "pardon" to draft dodgers, something that he distinguished from an "amnesty". He also turned the Panama Canal back over to Panama. Reagan seemed very extroverted about foreign policy, with his seemingly wanting some big confrontation with the "evil empire", but he and others bellyached about "Vietnam syndrome" -- introversion. The US became more extroverted in the late 1980's, with its participation in the Gulf War in 1991, in Afghanistan in 2001, and in Iraq in 2003, and more generally, in the "War on Terror".

But the US has been winding down those wars, with the US pulling out of Iraq in 2011. Its involvement with Libya's civil war in 2011 was mainly as an air force without a lot of troops on the ground. The Obama Administration has been a big user of drones, and the Trump Administration an even bigger user, likely because drones are a low-investment sort of weapon -- much cheaper than sending some big expeditionary force like in 1991.

So the US has likely entered an introverted phase of foreign policy, one without anything much bigger than drones.
 
I suspect that the US will continue its military bases where it now has bases, but that it will not go on any big new military adventures. The most that the US will do there is drones, air support, and Special-Forces actions, I think.


Domestically, I expect that the Republican Party will try to continue to make the US a one-party state with the only party being the Republican Party. It is on its way to doing that in the states where it dominates, by gerrymandering and vote suppression. Will the Democratic Party reach some accommodation with it to let it dominate some states in exchange with giving the Republicans free rein elsewhere? Or will the Republican Party turn on the Democratic Party where it is big and suppress it? Republican Party officials will likely claim that Democrats are guilty of everything that they themselves do, and that that is good reason to suppress the Democratic Party.

Will anyone try to convince the United Nations to send observers to US elections? With the way that they are going, I would not be surprised if it happens.
 
My guess : There'll be at least one financial crisis by then, at least as bad as 2008, with more deep, protracted recession. There'll be no room for more monetary policy fixes, so either mainstream parties will try expansionary fiscal policy (basically progressive) or far right opportunists will step in.
 
Taking away my comfortable lifestyle might do it. You can even get away with that for awhile as long as I have easy access to cheap drugs and alcohol.

Sandy Hook is not just my standard for political apathy but the apathy of a nation. If we couldn’t stand up and demand change after such shocking and vile wickedness, there is no cause great enough.

I think only sustained and increasing levels of discomfort will motivate us. Comfort is the one thing most of us were born into and would be shaken to our core if it were taken away.

I'm not sure I follow that. Are you saying that, for some political ideology, you would sacrifice comfort and affluence, the things that everyone in the world wants and strives for? Actually those are the things that all the political ideologies I am aware of promise (but few deliver) in order to attract adherents.

I am reading that as the opposite - He is saying (I believe) that the only thing that would cause him to become politically active beyond merely voting every couple of years would be to take away that comfort. If enough people are made homeless, or lose their access to the benefits of modern living, then that deprived class might rise up in revolt against the system that promised them comfort, and then took it away.

So rather than being prepared to revolt despite the loss of comfort revolution might cause, he is saying rather that he might be driven to revolt if his comfortable life were taken from him. (TV and credit cards - please correct me if the above is an incorrect interpretation of your post).

As a counter to that, I note that bums and hobos have yet to rise up and slaughter the wealthy in the USA, largely because if they had guns, they would pawn them to buy some food, booze and/or cigarettes.

Your country needs a LOT of VERY poor people before they become any kind of threat. The poor are not well armed, nor are they well organized; And in most cases, they look at the small picture when assigning blame - a guy who loses everything might decide to shoot the bastard manager who fired him after thirty years of loyalty, but he is much less likely to decide to assassinate the President, Congressman, or State Governor over the policies that lead his employer to tell management they had to cut staff.
 
So 20 years from now...

I wonder what ethnic/religious group we are going to have to be irrationally afraid of a generation from now. It's the Buddhist's turn now, surely. It's also been a while since people were terrified of Scandinavians as well.
 
America’s Next Civil War · The Walrus - by some Canadians.
American chaos is already oozing over the border: the trickle of refugees crossing after Trump’s election has swollen to a flood; a trade war is underway, with a US trade representative describing Canada as “a national security threat”; and the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military the world has ever known openly praises authoritarians as he attempts to dismantle the international postwar order. The US has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council, pulled out of the Paris climate agreement, abandoned the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, and scorned the bedrock NATO doctrine of mutual defence. Meanwhile, the imperium itself continues to unravel: the administration is launching a “denaturalization task force” to potentially strip scores of immigrants of their US citizenship, and voter purges—the often-faulty processes of deleting ineligible names from registration lists—are on the rise, especially in states with a history of racial discrimination. News of one disaster after another keeps up its relentless pace but nonetheless shocks everybody. If you had told anyone even a year ago that border guards would be holding children in detention centres, no one would have believed you.
Barack Obama would talk about how the US was one nation, but he ignored increasing evidence of US divisions. Even being attacked by the Right and obstructed by Republican politicians did not make that recognize that until it was too late
The past few decades have led to “ideological sorting,” which means that the overlap between conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans has more or less disappeared, eliminating the political centre.
The parties also started to differ on racial resentment, from not much difference in the Reagan and Bush I years, to a significant one in the Obama years: 64% for Reps and 35% for Dems. Also risen is considering each other's policies a danger to the nation. In 2014: Rep 37% Dem 31%, 2016: Rep 45% Dem 41%. "Political adversaries regard each other as un-American; they regard the other’s media, whether Fox News or the New York Times, as poison or fake news. A sizable chunk also don’t want their children to marry members of the opposing party."
Democracies are built around institutions that are larger than partisan struggle; they survive on the strength of them. The delegitimization of national institutions “almost inevitably leads to chaos,” Gates says, citing Trump’s constant attacks on the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the judicial system as typical of societies headed toward political collapse, as happened in Venezuela under Hugo Chávez.
The Supreme Court has already become partisan, notably in the Bush vs. Gore rulling that decided the 2000 election, and its perceived legitimacy is already split: Rep 72% vs. Dem 38%.

"In a sense, the crisis has already arrived. Only the inciting incident is missing." Then mentioning President James Buchanan's final State of the Union address in January 1860, where he stated what he thought was a good compromise. He stated that secession was unlawful but that he constitutionally could not do anything about it. Four months after that, the Civil War started.

So far, only the US military continues to be perceived as above politics. But if strife gets bad enough, will it step in?
According to a poll conducted by the Military Times, a news source for service members, almost 48 percent of enlisted troops approve of Trump, but only about 30 percent of officers do. It appears that the American military is as divided as the country.
So the US military is also divided.
 
Then what provokes strife. Economists Anirban Mitra and Debraj Ray looked at Hindu-Muslim strife in India, and they found that "an increase in per capita Muslim expenditures generates a large and significant increase in future religious conflict. An increase in Hindu expenditures has a negative or no effect."
That suggests revolution is not like the communist prophets of the nineteenth century believed it would be, with the underclass rising up against their oppressors. It’s sometimes the oppressors who revolt. In the case of India, according to Mitra and Ray’s research, riots start at the times and in the places when and where the Muslims are gaining the most relative to the Hindus. Violence protects status in a context of declining influence.
The US has something similar: blacks and Hispanics gaining in status, with working-class whites considering themselves losing in status.

Then climate change, something whose denial is heavily financed by the fossil-fuel lobby.
In 2012, a hot and dry year in the US, soy bean, sorghum, and corn yields were down as much as 16 percent. And, because the country is a major producer of commodity crops, the drought pushed up food prices at home and globally. There are a lot more 2012s coming.
So we have a lot of conditions for civil war.
But when you land at JFK and line up for Shake Shack, where are the insurgents?

...
If there is an insurgency-in-waiting, it will likely be drawn from the hundreds of antigovernment groups across the country, many of which were readying for civil war in 2016 in the event of a Hillary Clinton presidency. One of the most extreme examples is an ideological subculture made up of “sovereign citizens,” who believe that citizens are the sole authority of law.
The Southern Poverty Law Center estimated in 2011 that there are some 300,000 "sovereign citizens" and their sympathizers.

To put that in perspective, the Weather Underground was estimated to contain hundreds of members. Some guesses put the number of Black Panthers as high as 10,000, a debatable figure.
Though talking a lot about violence, they did relatively little, but nevertheless, the provoked panic and a strong response from the FBI.

Sovereign citizens? They believe themselves to be completely sovereign and subject to no Federal, state, or local law. The FBI considers them a worse domestic-terrorism problem than Islamists.
 
Nothing. People can’t get worked up enough to spend an hour of their time every two years to go out and vote. They’re not going to get passion and energy all of a sudden to put together some sort of uprising.

Agreed. It's a matter of contentedness. People commonly bitch and moan about something, but rarely do anything about it unless truly upset. Even the Romans understood the importance of Bread and Circuses. As long as people are fed, sheltered and relatively happy, they won't revolt. Those who seek to start a Civil or guerrilla war against the US government should read both some history and some How-to books. I recommend the two below for starters. I'm not condoning such action, jump trying to help others understand the difficulties involved.


ONE HUNDRED FIFTY QUESTIONS TO A GUERRILLA By Alberto Bayo Giroud
1. In order for a guerrilla to succeed, exactly what preconditions should exist?

To be right in your struggle against the injustices which a people suffer, whether from foreign invasion, the imposition of a dictatorship, the existence of a government which is an enemy to the people, an oligarchic regime, etc. If these conditions do not exist, the guerrilla war will always be defeated. Whoever revolts unrighteously reaps nothing but a crushing defeat.


GUERILLA WARFARE by Che Guevara
Guerrilla warfare is used by the side which is supported by a majority but which possesses a much smaller number of arms for use in defense against oppression.

The guerrilla fighter needs full help from the people of the area. This is an indispensable condition. This is clearly seen by considering the case of bandit gangs that operate in a region. They have all the characteristics of a guerrilla army: homogeneity, respect for the leader, valor, knowledge of the ground, and, often, even good understanding of the tactics to be employed. The only thing missing is support of the people; and, inevitably, these gangs are captured and exterminated by the public force.
 
My guess : There'll be at least one financial crisis by then, at least as bad as 2008, with more deep, protracted recession. There'll be no room for more monetary policy fixes, so either mainstream parties will try expansionary fiscal policy (basically progressive) or far right opportunists will step in.
I'm guessing that will happen even before 20 years. And when the dollar becomes obsolete, the world will then go on a crypto currency of sorts.

Crypto currency technology will be HUGE and disrupting. Because in a crypto currency world, there are only 2 possibilities. Either total and complete democracy with the obvious financial freedom to work and make purchases without taxation.....or a complete totalitarian world government controlled (maybe by China?). What we do know already is that world governments in general are not going to want to go down without a fight. So I am betting we will all be wearing the mark of the beast in order for our electronic currency to work so we can eat.
 
I agree with Canard du Jour (I think at post 29) that another cataclysmic recession or market collapse is a possibility -- does anyone think we've learned our lesson with that? If the U.N. climate change report is reliable, weather catastrophes and agricultural disasters will be commonplace in 12 years. In 20 years, the U.S. will enter its final 4 years of being a Caucasian-majority country. Nothing I've read explains how Medicaid will exist much longer. Medicare & Social Security are obvious targets of the Paul Ryans of the country. Nuclear weapons in zealots' hands could make all of these mind-boggling changes into page 2 stories. It's hard to see how this century will produce a healthier, happier human populace. We're a bunch of contrary bastards, I guess.
 
I don't see the dollar collapsing - that's just scaremongering by people who dislike public spending. The problem again will be private sector debt and asset bubbles, only worse. That lesson has not been learned, not least because said scaremongers managed to blame the last one on public spending.
 
Back
Top Bottom