Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

[John]

** 20-Jul-2023 World View: E-mail message about Fourth Turning

A correspondent sent me the following
message:

I don't know if you are seeing the same
thing, but people everywhere are talking
about The Fourth Turning again....the
New York Times just wrote an article
about it (which I haven read yet because
I don't have a subscription), Neil Howe
is on the Realignment Podcast right now
(I have it on in the background), but
this is only two of maybe 10 places I
have heard this book discussed in the
past 2 weeks

Here was my response:

The Fourth Turning was published in the
mid-1990s, and was the foundational book
on general theory and Generational
Dynamics. However, the book contains a
number of errors and limitations that
I've corrected. The main limitation is
that FT applies only to the
Anglo-American timeline (England and
North America) since the War of the
Roses in 1400s England. The main errors
are a consequence of this limitation.
FT assumes that everyone is on the same
timeline, causing major problems and
inconsistencies in analyzing the 1600s.

When I started developing Generational
Dynamics in 2003, the first thing that
was obvious to me was that Eastern
Europe was on a different timeline than
Western Europe. So I developed the
"Principle of Localization," which says
that each nation has its own timeline,
and in particular that the timelines of
England and North America diverged
during the 1600s.

The interesting thing is that both
Strauss and Howe were Democrats, and the
FT theory was geared to Democrat Party
values. So when Bush became president,
S&H began to abandon their own theory
because it supported the
neo-conservatives. When Obama became
president, they predicted that the
"generational crisis" would be Obama's
transformation of America into we would
now call a "woke" culture. When that
didn't happen, Obama himself was blamed
for not being forceful enough. That
explains why the FT community has pretty
much abandoned their own theory, and why
Biden and the Democrats have adopted
far-left socialist policies -- declaring
war on the energy industry, opening the
border to millions of illegal
immigrants, sexualizing young children,
spending billions of dollars on cronies,
attacking Israel, accepting bribes from
China, reducing funding for armed
forces, implemnting "Ministry of Truth"
censorship regime, and so forth.
Fortunately, most of these Socialist
policies have been collapsing.

In the forum, Bob Butler is a far-left
Democrat who supports the original
Fourth Turning theory. He is most
active in the "Polyticks: Bob Butler's
Perspective" thread.

[Bob Butler]

A few comments on John’s post.

What John calls “The Principle of Localization” might be tied to various efforts at Civilizations. Large groups like Orthodox, Muslim, and Chinese might each have its own values and timelines. If you follow Toynbee's A Study of History or Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations you bump into similar ideas. I can agree with John that you need to follow more than just America, and the world isn’t in lockstep.

It is also possible to distinguish between Agricultural Age wars contesting who controlled which dynasty such as the War of the Roses as distinct from Industrial Age wars such as when the rural Kings fought Oliver Cromwell and his ilk and began the contests which shifted English civilization from the Agricultural to the Industrial patterns. While John might dwell on things like “The Principle of Localization”, I see ages, civilizations and turnings as all relevant and interacting. In summary, perhaps from Cromwell to World War II saw the Industrial Age shifting typical civilizations from the written word, hereditary government, animal power and muscle powered weapons to the printed word, representative democracy, steam power and gunpowder weapons.

Then suddenly we leaped to the Information Age, with computers, TBD, renewable energy and nukes coming to the fore. The patterns of civilization change with Ages. Each Age slowly shifts in Turnings. Many Civilizations exist, each with its own path, timing and values. The patterns of and lessons learned in one age, turning or civilization might not apply to another. What you can infer from one time and place might be of dubious worth at other points in history.

Back when Strauss and Howe were first actively promoting their theory, we considered them conservative. The theory emphasized how America acquired values at various crises, roughly every four score and seven years apart. Yes, too much emphasis was put on America and the values of independence, equality, freedom and containment. But these were conservative American values, and it was easy to celebrate them as such.

At least until I noted they were progressive values. They represented new ideas that solved the problems of the crisis to become persistent ideas to be hammered home during the high. Suddenly, a crisis was not a time of inventing new American values, but also a time of upheaval and change. With this shift in emphasis, the meaning of a crisis changed. A crisis brought to a head the worst problem or two of the culture. The conservative side… At best, they wanted the problem to continue; noble privilege, colonial imperialism, slavery, conquest. The progressive side wanted to fix the problem, did, and hammered home new values learned in the high; equality, independence, freedom and containment.

Which brings us to the question of which problems are most significant today? What problems are we confronting which will result in new values? First, some wrong answers. Both Bushes tried conquest in a post conquest era. They failed. Instead we learned the usual crisis lesson of putting no boots on the ground. Obama tried to make health care affordable, managed, barely, but in doing so he spent all his political capitol. He seemed to be more concerned with being a good solid first black president than pushing crisis theory, so he was sort of a dud from the S&H perspective. He was respectable, sure, but no gray champion.

The real problem is white supremacy. The conservatives are trying to maintain control of the culture, to continue bad habits from the past. Traditional religious doctrines are enforced by the government. Prejudice is accepted and endorsed. Oppression of various races and sexual orientations is the norm. These religious doctrines, prejudice, criminal behavior, corruption and a contempt for rule of law have come to the fore.

As noted a few posts ago, solving these real practical problems gives the blue side the women’s vote, the minority votes, and the anti spree killer’s votes. I have trouble imagining the religious fanatics and bigots overcoming this. We saw the first rumblings of change in 2020 and 2022, possibly becoming clearer in 2024. Thus, the result of this crisis is apt to echo prior crisis. The conservative values collapse…. New progressive ideas take their place.

[Bob Butler]

Another truth expressed in John’s note is that the red and blue folk each have their own mindset which has been put forward at various times by different people. He spoke of Obama pushing what is now called a ‘woke’ perspective. I could suggest Trump pushing a religious, prejudiced agenda. I don’t think anyone will prevent these two perspectives from being presented.

You think back to Thomas Jefferson writing about all men being equal, then going to his black slave woman that he perceived of as owning. What has been meant by all 'men' being equal has changed over the years, will keep changing. What was meant was that all male property owning protestant caucasians were equal. That was a step forward once. In his dream speech, Martin Luther King listed an impressive number of expectations as to the next step black equality would require. Free at last, or just defining a set of achievable goals? We do seem to be considering a next step after that. MLK’s dream was not enough, as was Lincoln’s and the suffragettes dreams were not enough.

Today the issue rotates around white supremacy. US culture has in the past been dominated by whites. It is understandable that they would want to keep it that way. If a given racial group or sexual preference has been oppressed, what is this equality thing? They have never been equal before. Traditional European religious doctrines have always been part of the culture. What are women to integrate new technology into the culture? The rich have always had an outsized influence over government. What is this nonsense about equality?

There seem to be a number of definitions of woke. It was originally a black word. Be awake to the obvious prejudice and oppression. DeSantis is at least accurate in turning it around. You fight equality by oppressing various racial and sexual groups, by emphasizing elements of traditional white culture?

But both sides will attempt to justify their view of how things should be. I don’t see that either side is particularly shy about it.

[Bob Butler]

It seems like a primary objective of the Jan 6 indictment and court case is to prove the Big Lie a big lie. Jack Smith spends much of his text on that central point, from which all else follows. He demonstrates it with a lot of statements by tried and true members of the Trump administration, a bunch of court cases, and a total lack of evidence otherwise.

Does anyone here still believe the Big Lie?

[Bob Butler]

I see that you're calling me "deplorable." As usual, Democrats have nothing to say except to call names.

When Hillary called a bunch of red people deplorable, she didn’t win a lot of votes. In terms of competing in the election, insulting voters was a mistake. In terms of describing these people given their beliefs in white supremacy, of using the power of the government to enforce white religious doctrine, in terms of believing in and practicing white prejudice, it was descriptive. In terms of spree killing, deplorable seems to weak a word.

Biden and other Democrats today are in a similar place. Every time Trump is indicted, he gets a bump in the polls. If you believe the criminal justice system is pursing genuine crimes in support of rule of law, Trump’s habit of criminal behavior might be said to be deplorable. Biden says nothing to Garland, who in turn says noting to Smith. If on the other hand you believe Biden is giving his major political opponent a hard time, the Republicans would view that as being deplorable. Rape, tax evasion, fraud, insurrection…. If you can ignore these despicable traits, are you despicable? They might choose another word, but that’s the dynamic. Biden’s supposed deplorable behavior in believing in rule of law results in a bump in Trump’s polls. The fact that Trump actually committed the crimes he is being accused of is somehow ignored.

I’m using ‘deplorable’ in a descriptive sense. If one has a choice between love and hate, choosing hate is deplorable. If one bans posts hating Jews from your forum, but does not ban hatred of other similar races or religions, that would be deplorable if you believe in equality.

In short, I am not using deplorable as an insult or piece of propaganda. I am being descriptive.

Systems of viewing history ought to be balanced between hating enemies and loving friends. Both human instincts shape human cultures. Generational Dynamics is slanted heavily towards hate. That seems deplorable.

In the Agricultural Age of swords and bows, war was cost effective. In the Information Age of defensive alliances, proxy wars, insurgent wars and sanctions, it is far less cost effective. Slanting one’s own culture towards love and containment becomes far more cost effective. Slanting it towards war, violence, prejudice and hate seems…. deplorable.

[Bob Butler]

Of late, Professor Emeritus Lawrence Tribe has been one of many legal scholars asserting the third clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment makes Trump ineligible to serve as president again. Said clause is…

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Two professors have apparently written a law article supporting ineligibility which goes into full detail. Tribe is only going to the popular press level for the moment, but it all will have to be taken seriously shortly. The argument is that whether Trump is put on the ballot or not, the State’s Attorney or other official who put him there or not could well be hit with a lawsuit. This will rapidly get appealed to the Supreme Court, who will make a final decision.

Note, if you do not qualify to be president, say if you are younger than 35 of not born in the US, it does not take an act of Congress to remove you from the ballot. Such may be the case here.

The interesting thing is that not only are the scholars in favor of disqualification in the majority, they are not opposed. Does anyone know of a serious constitutional expert who argues against the disqualification? The plain reading is for disqualification, and there is no convoluted reading. There is already a precedent where Couy Griffin was removed as county commissioner in New Mexico for participating in the insurrection, so the insurrection is by law an insurrection.

This leaves the other Republican candidates for president in a bit of a bind. Most of them are defending Trump rather that alienate the MAGA base. You need that base to win the nomination. If he is disqualified, what then? Would you nominate him anyway, even if Roberts would only swear in his Vice? Would you hope to be the Vice? Would you count on the bulk of Republicans to reject fact of the insurrection?

A twist. I’m interested in how it will play in the campaign.

[John]

The latest Democrat fantasy.

[Bob Butler]

The latest Democrat fantasy.

Do you have another serious interpretation other than a Republican fantasy? I quoted the Constitution and various legal experts. If you have nothing serious to contribute, don't. It is like the climate debate. Once upon a time I quoted theory on the original S&H site. Of late it is easier and more convincing to quote the headlines. The response is nothing, neither theory or recent events. Folks state an opinion with nothing at all to back it up. You should be better than that.

[John]

** 20-Aug-2023 World View: Democrat fantasies

> The latest Democrat fantasy.

> Do you have another serious
> interpretation other than a
> Republican fantasy? I quoted the
> Constitution and various legal
> experts. If you have nothing
> serious to contribute, don't. It is
> like the climate debate. Once upon
> a time I quoted theory on the
> original S&H site. Of late it is
> easier and more convincing to quote
> the headlines. The response is
> nothing, neither theory or recent
> events. Folks state an opinion with
> nothing at all to back it up. You
> should be better than that.

This has been going on for seven or
eight years, and I'm pretty sick of it,
as are many Republicans.

There was Hillary's Steele dossier hoax,
the Russian conspiracy hoax, the Mueller
probe hoax, the two impeachment
fantasies, and the Jan 6 committee
fantasy. Every one of these fantasies
and hoaxes was accompanied by lies and
fabrications by hysterical Democrats,
such as by shithead Adam Schiff. But
nothing came of any of these.

So now that jackass woman in Atlanta has
accused Trump and 19 Trump associates of
dozens of racketeering and conspiracy
charges. Trump is now facing 91 charges
in multiple states, which is a
ridiculous farce. There is nothing too
ridiculous or illegal for the Democrats
to try.

So now Laurence Tribe, that idiot
Democrat hack, who pretends that he's an
expert, says that Trump can't run for
President because he's guilty of
rebellion and insurrection. But none of
those ridiculous 91 charges has anything
to do with that, and so Trump hasn't
even been charged with rebellion and
insurrection, let alone tried and
convicted.

So the whole thing is just a ridiculous
Democrat fantasy, typical of the garbage
that we hear from Democrats each and
every day.

[Bob Butler]

This has been going on for seven or eight years, and I'm pretty sick of it, as are many Republicans...

You can’t just declare every fact you don’t want to hear a hoax. Tump is a liar. He has repeatedly claimed voter fraud in 2020 and never supplied anything resembling proof. The courts denied it. Congress denied it. The media denied it. On the other hand, many of the 91 charges are that Trump tried so override the will of the voters. That has everything to do with it. The whole Georgia RICO case and one of the federal cases are about how Trump and his co conspirators ran a rebellion and insurrection. The smaller fry who actually broke into the Capitol have been convicted or arranged plea deals many many times.

And yes going after the chief conspirators has been slow. We are mostly in the indictment phase yet. The theft of government documents case is considered a slam dunk. The rest of it is nearly equally clear.

And I know how you rank against Professor Tribe as a constitutional scholar. It takes more than closing your eyes and chanting ‘hoax’ repeatedly to gain a world wide reputation. All the serious scholars that have spoken on the issue agree with him. It takes more that an internet hack providing zero law or contrary analysis to be considered more than a joke.

Now, try again. Quote relevant law. Provide pertinent analysis. If you are going to take on renowned experts in the field you need more than fantasy. Or better yet, shut up and talk about something you know about.

I’ve seen the disqualification clause repeatedly discussed on CNN and MSMBC. A quick Google search indicates The Atlantic, The Guardian, and The Hill are among those who are picking it up. The argument is truly out of the bag. How to get the question before the Supreme Court is now well known. This isn’t just me. I suspect the disqualification clause is going to be an important part of all this.