Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
It's derp, though admittedly both are cash crops on Bullsh1t Mountain.
It's derp, though admittedly both are cash crops on Bullsh1t Mountain.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
She should have been left on that island.
(it may not have been an actual island she was on that show so long ago)
She should have been left on that island.
(it may not have been an actual island she was on that show so long ago)
busterman62
I got a pocket full of kryptonite
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
Bruni is the guy who wrote "Ambling into History." I have no idea if it was any good, but talk about summarizing Dubya in one phrase.
Bruni is the guy who wrote "Ambling into History." I have no idea if it was any good, but talk about summarizing Dubya in one phrase.
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
That's a good column. And if I worry about the next election, it's not to support or oppose any current candidate, but to wonder if ANY president will be able to have any degree of leadership success in this culture. Many of us used to stand up for certain principles and desired courses (we should raise taxes, we should lower taxes). The only thing I hear lately is pointing out how bad the other guy is and defining other people's thoughts and actions in the most negative ways possible. Will the overwhelming negativity have any positive effect? I doubt it.
Here's a request for you thinkers, if you don't mind. If we re-invade Iraq, what good could come out of it? If we ignore it, how will things get better? In honesty most of us will probably arrive at the sort of poking half-measures Obama is undertaking with the air strikes and limited troops (not knowing the details myself).
It's just my feeling that the aim of discourse should be creative, not destructive.
That's a good column. And if I worry about the next election, it's not to support or oppose any current candidate, but to wonder if ANY president will be able to have any degree of leadership success in this culture. Many of us used to stand up for certain principles and desired courses (we should raise taxes, we should lower taxes). The only thing I hear lately is pointing out how bad the other guy is and defining other people's thoughts and actions in the most negative ways possible. Will the overwhelming negativity have any positive effect? I doubt it.
Here's a request for you thinkers, if you don't mind. If we re-invade Iraq, what good could come out of it? If we ignore it, how will things get better? In honesty most of us will probably arrive at the sort of poking half-measures Obama is undertaking with the air strikes and limited troops (not knowing the details myself).
It's just my feeling that the aim of discourse should be creative, not destructive.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
I think it is still possible to "lead," in the sense of getting together a large enough portion of the country to execute an action. It is probably no longer possible to get the entire country behind a given action simply because there's no longer a filter on minority opinion. On the one hand, that's great -- it means minority voices are no longer shut out by a conspiracy of media gatekeepers. On the other hand, it means the illusion of unanimity of action is gone, maybe forever. As has been pointed out here before, no action in American history was unanimous.
Even when it was just newspapers, the undercutting of the incumbent by partisan papers was hamfisted and constant. It's really an eye opener to read opinion pieces in anti-Roosevelt papers during WW2. There's constant back-biting, criticism, and outright slander of the president who about a third of the country could never bring themselves to call anything other than "That Man." With the benefit of hindsight, those opinions were buried and the people who held them either walked them back or died grumbling. That probably won't happen anymore, just because too many people are too balls deep in their criticism to try and quietly erase it. This obviously goes both ways.
"Leadership" consists in working with those who it is possible to work with and circumventing those who it is not possible. That's certainly still something that can and will be done, but leaders also make enemies. The Civil Rights Movement was the epitome of modern political leadership, and they had to make headway against a huge, recalcitrant force of not only opposition but blind hatred. Leadership in that case didn't mean make kissy with those guys, it meant cutting them off, containing their poison, and letting them die off harmlessly.
I think it is still possible to "lead," in the sense of getting together a large enough portion of the country to execute an action. It is probably no longer possible to get the entire country behind a given action simply because there's no longer a filter on minority opinion. On the one hand, that's great -- it means minority voices are no longer shut out by a conspiracy of media gatekeepers. On the other hand, it means the illusion of unanimity of action is gone, maybe forever. As has been pointed out here before, no action in American history was unanimous.
Even when it was just newspapers, the undercutting of the incumbent by partisan papers was hamfisted and constant. It's really an eye opener to read opinion pieces in anti-Roosevelt papers during WW2. There's constant back-biting, criticism, and outright slander of the president who about a third of the country could never bring themselves to call anything other than "That Man." With the benefit of hindsight, those opinions were buried and the people who held them either walked them back or died grumbling. That probably won't happen anymore, just because too many people are too balls deep in their criticism to try and quietly erase it. This obviously goes both ways.
"Leadership" consists in working with those who it is possible to work with and circumventing those who it is not possible. That's certainly still something that can and will be done, but leaders also make enemies. The Civil Rights Movement was the epitome of modern political leadership, and they had to make headway against a huge, recalcitrant force of not only opposition but blind hatred. Leadership in that case didn't mean make kissy with those guys, it meant cutting them off, containing their poison, and letting them die off harmlessly.
Last edited:
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
Most liberals thought it was shallow and hagiographic, while some dyed-in-the-wool theo-conservatives felt it reinforced the narrative that Bush was a wet-brained country bumpkin who stumbled into the Oval. So, it's probably a decent read.
Most liberals thought it was shallow and hagiographic, while some dyed-in-the-wool theo-conservatives felt it reinforced the narrative that Bush was a wet-brained country bumpkin who stumbled into the Oval. So, it's probably a decent read.
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
I think you get a lot of strife when one generation is forced to pass the torch to another. Eventually this problem fixes itself for obvious reasons. So older Generation A says "this is the way we always do things". Younger Generation B says "not anymore". When those two generations are roughly at par is when you get the conflicts. Over time the older generation fades in influence and the younger one rules until they get eclipsed.
So, think of the 60's when the Boomers (+ those too young to remember the War) started agitating against the Greatest Generation. Lots of fighting until eventually the Boomers took over and ruled for several decades. Now a Gen X + Millenials are taking over, but Boomers are still fighting to hold onto what they have. That grip will continue to weaken over time and the Gen X + Millenials will rule. We're still in the battle phase right now.
I think you get a lot of strife when one generation is forced to pass the torch to another. Eventually this problem fixes itself for obvious reasons. So older Generation A says "this is the way we always do things". Younger Generation B says "not anymore". When those two generations are roughly at par is when you get the conflicts. Over time the older generation fades in influence and the younger one rules until they get eclipsed.
So, think of the 60's when the Boomers (+ those too young to remember the War) started agitating against the Greatest Generation. Lots of fighting until eventually the Boomers took over and ruled for several decades. Now a Gen X + Millenials are taking over, but Boomers are still fighting to hold onto what they have. That grip will continue to weaken over time and the Gen X + Millenials will rule. We're still in the battle phase right now.
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
There's something to that, but I have doubts that age is the primary divider. First, young people have always leaned liberal until they gain enough wisdom and experience to be conservative (bear with me). Then, even among the college kids, the split is a lot closer to 50/50 than you imply (as far as party identification goes, though certainly not on generational social issues like gay rights) and very few of them are actually changing/maturing as they age. It might go from 52/48 liberal to 48/52 conservative. The Generational labels are false constructs anyhow, with someone arbitrarily picking a cutoff and saying the older people are X's, the younger are Y's.
I think of my dad, a big JFK supporter in his liberal youth, who gradually acquired enough maturity to see that "the less government the better" although he never belonged to a party.
Anyway, given my notion is that there is really only one huge generation in existence right now, on a long gradient of differing ages, my point is that civility in discourse could improve our efforts in making positive changes happen. If anything we could use somewhat less of classifying people into adverse groups.
There's something to that, but I have doubts that age is the primary divider. First, young people have always leaned liberal until they gain enough wisdom and experience to be conservative (bear with me). Then, even among the college kids, the split is a lot closer to 50/50 than you imply (as far as party identification goes, though certainly not on generational social issues like gay rights) and very few of them are actually changing/maturing as they age. It might go from 52/48 liberal to 48/52 conservative. The Generational labels are false constructs anyhow, with someone arbitrarily picking a cutoff and saying the older people are X's, the younger are Y's.
I think of my dad, a big JFK supporter in his liberal youth, who gradually acquired enough maturity to see that "the less government the better" although he never belonged to a party.
Anyway, given my notion is that there is really only one huge generation in existence right now, on a long gradient of differing ages, my point is that civility in discourse could improve our efforts in making positive changes happen. If anything we could use somewhat less of classifying people into adverse groups.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
What really happens is quite different. Most youths tend to moderate as they age, moving closer to the center, as they experience many ups and down and many different kinds of people, and generally become wiser and more tolerant. Radical liberals also follow this path and hence "move to the right." But radical conservatives do not, so the profile of older people is skewed by unreconstructed reactionaries who simply never learned from life.
Count me with geezer for not believing generations exist in any meaningful way anymore. The Boomers were the final generation that had any sort of cohort consciousness because it was the final generation that spoke only to itself. The labels of Gen X and Millennial are completely artificial and have nothing to do with actual people.
What really happens is quite different. Most youths tend to moderate as they age, moving closer to the center, as they experience many ups and down and many different kinds of people, and generally become wiser and more tolerant. Radical liberals also follow this path and hence "move to the right." But radical conservatives do not, so the profile of older people is skewed by unreconstructed reactionaries who simply never learned from life.
Count me with geezer for not believing generations exist in any meaningful way anymore. The Boomers were the final generation that had any sort of cohort consciousness because it was the final generation that spoke only to itself. The labels of Gen X and Millennial are completely artificial and have nothing to do with actual people.
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
Regarding the lack of civility, I would estimate that urban/rural, spiritual outlook, education level, and income level are each bigger dividers than age. (I'm hesitant to tie education to income, since I know too many millionaire plumbers and PhD clerks, although I'm aware of the correlation in aggregate).
Regarding the lack of civility, I would estimate that urban/rural, spiritual outlook, education level, and income level are each bigger dividers than age. (I'm hesitant to tie education to income, since I know too many millionaire plumbers and PhD clerks, although I'm aware of the correlation in aggregate).
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
Generations matter in that a whole group of people of a certain age are affected by the events that happened during their formative years. As I often tell some of our older righty friends, telling a 25 year old that Obama was fronting the Weathermen from his crib and hung out with Hanoi Jane and they'll look at you like you have two heads. They'll also find it inexplicable that anybody was against voting rights for blacks.
I don't know if Millenials are any less monolithic in thought than Boomers are. In fact, they may be more so as people born in the 40's and 50's have different memories than those born at the tail end of the Baby Boom who would barely remember JFK or much of Vietnam. Time will tell as the youngest of that cohort hasn't reached voting age yet. However, dismiss generational preferences at your own peril. Somebody born in 1980 has little memory of Reagan, but remembers the peace and prosperity of the Clinton era and then the utter disaster of the Bush II era. Yet they have no idea why 60+ year old pundits on TV keep trying to equate every election to the Reagan-Carter contest. Things like that matter, regardless of how you want to classify the age group that experiences them.
Generations matter in that a whole group of people of a certain age are affected by the events that happened during their formative years. As I often tell some of our older righty friends, telling a 25 year old that Obama was fronting the Weathermen from his crib and hung out with Hanoi Jane and they'll look at you like you have two heads. They'll also find it inexplicable that anybody was against voting rights for blacks.
I don't know if Millenials are any less monolithic in thought than Boomers are. In fact, they may be more so as people born in the 40's and 50's have different memories than those born at the tail end of the Baby Boom who would barely remember JFK or much of Vietnam. Time will tell as the youngest of that cohort hasn't reached voting age yet. However, dismiss generational preferences at your own peril. Somebody born in 1980 has little memory of Reagan, but remembers the peace and prosperity of the Clinton era and then the utter disaster of the Bush II era. Yet they have no idea why 60+ year old pundits on TV keep trying to equate every election to the Reagan-Carter contest. Things like that matter, regardless of how you want to classify the age group that experiences them.
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
I don't think any of that matters to individuals. Whether or not you were alive during Reagan's presidency, your opinion of him and his politics will not be shaped by the circumstances of your own life during that time, but by your personal influencers - a parent, a teacher, a book, etc. and what you glean from that model. Even if I'm in the best of places right now due to Obama's health care or whatever, if I give him credit at all it's going to be either "because of him" or "in spite of him" depending on the things and people that really matter in my life that inform my politics. But it could equally likely go either way. Also, being influenced more by interpretations of events than actual events, means whether I was 6 or 60 when they happened isn't relevant. I know a lot more about the Civil War than a lot of people who lived during the time it took place, simply because I've chosen to read about it.
Obviously I'm just spitballing here, so fire away.
I don't think any of that matters to individuals. Whether or not you were alive during Reagan's presidency, your opinion of him and his politics will not be shaped by the circumstances of your own life during that time, but by your personal influencers - a parent, a teacher, a book, etc. and what you glean from that model. Even if I'm in the best of places right now due to Obama's health care or whatever, if I give him credit at all it's going to be either "because of him" or "in spite of him" depending on the things and people that really matter in my life that inform my politics. But it could equally likely go either way. Also, being influenced more by interpretations of events than actual events, means whether I was 6 or 60 when they happened isn't relevant. I know a lot more about the Civil War than a lot of people who lived during the time it took place, simply because I've chosen to read about it.
Obviously I'm just spitballing here, so fire away.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
As with religion, the large majority of people replicate the political orientation of their parents without any further thought. The Boomers were odd because they actually had a generational identity (albeit one almost completely crafted by advertisers). We are now returning to the much more normal "tribal" situation, where other characteristics (geography, education, wealth, religion) determine the political ideas that the mass call "their own."
The vast majority of people do not create abstract ideas in their heads, they just inherit somebody else's (parent, pastor, peer). The word for that should not be "stupid" or really anything more derogatory than "incurious." 4/5ths of our fellow citizens, or maybe more, are like this. This can't have escaped the attention of anybody who went to high school.
As with religion, the large majority of people replicate the political orientation of their parents without any further thought. The Boomers were odd because they actually had a generational identity (albeit one almost completely crafted by advertisers). We are now returning to the much more normal "tribal" situation, where other characteristics (geography, education, wealth, religion) determine the political ideas that the mass call "their own."
The vast majority of people do not create abstract ideas in their heads, they just inherit somebody else's (parent, pastor, peer). The word for that should not be "stupid" or really anything more derogatory than "incurious." 4/5ths of our fellow citizens, or maybe more, are like this. This can't have escaped the attention of anybody who went to high school.
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
Yeah I just see it differently. Reading about the Civil War isn't the same as living through it for example, so I don't think it would have as profound an impact on current voting trends. Also the turmoil of the 60's was devastating for the Dems for decades as they were the majority party, while the atrocious Bush Presidency will haunt the GOP for years. For many people of an earlier era, LBJ and Carter were the only Dem Presidents they ever knew. For anybody born from the late 80's on - Bush II is going to be the only GOP President they've ever known. That has an effect. IMHO this along with events is what influences your preferences.
Yeah I just see it differently. Reading about the Civil War isn't the same as living through it for example, so I don't think it would have as profound an impact on current voting trends. Also the turmoil of the 60's was devastating for the Dems for decades as they were the majority party, while the atrocious Bush Presidency will haunt the GOP for years. For many people of an earlier era, LBJ and Carter were the only Dem Presidents they ever knew. For anybody born from the late 80's on - Bush II is going to be the only GOP President they've ever known. That has an effect. IMHO this along with events is what influences your preferences.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
You might want to set the bar a little higher there, Kepler.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
I agree with this -- I do not think it's the events, per se, but the narratives that gain traction. It comes down to gut feelings of which party can be "trusted." In the mid-70s, after the Sixties and the McGovern campaign, the Dems were easily plastered as "soft on crime, weak on defense, fuzzy-headed on economics." That label stuck through the 80s and well into the 90s, even though by then the political realities had completely refuted any part that might have been true. The 00's and 10's have now gakked up a GOP that is concisely painted as "racist, sexist, homophobic" on social issues, "finger puppets of billionaires" on economics, "theocratic" in the face of an ever-less-fundamentalist population, and nearly psychotic on military intervention and foreign policy. Those labels are going to be hard to shake, particularly since the GOP can't even admit it has a problem yet for fear of alienating its base.
To see how long-lasting labels can be it's instructive to look at old conservatives, who continue to trot out epithets about liberals and Dems that lost their currency sometime around the Dole campaign, and then can't understand why the old applause lines don't work anymore on anybody but other old conservatives. It's the equivalent of embarrassedly listening to somebody still ranting about bi-metalism in 1940.
I agree with this -- I do not think it's the events, per se, but the narratives that gain traction. It comes down to gut feelings of which party can be "trusted." In the mid-70s, after the Sixties and the McGovern campaign, the Dems were easily plastered as "soft on crime, weak on defense, fuzzy-headed on economics." That label stuck through the 80s and well into the 90s, even though by then the political realities had completely refuted any part that might have been true. The 00's and 10's have now gakked up a GOP that is concisely painted as "racist, sexist, homophobic" on social issues, "finger puppets of billionaires" on economics, "theocratic" in the face of an ever-less-fundamentalist population, and nearly psychotic on military intervention and foreign policy. Those labels are going to be hard to shake, particularly since the GOP can't even admit it has a problem yet for fear of alienating its base.
To see how long-lasting labels can be it's instructive to look at old conservatives, who continue to trot out epithets about liberals and Dems that lost their currency sometime around the Dole campaign, and then can't understand why the old applause lines don't work anymore on anybody but other old conservatives. It's the equivalent of embarrassedly listening to somebody still ranting about bi-metalism in 1940.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
No, high school is important, because it's the last time we're intimately exposed to a true cross-section of the population. After that we're free to self-segregate, and we do with a vengeance. But in high school you can look out across the sea of shining faces and grasp just how insipid the general population is.
No, high school is important, because it's the last time we're intimately exposed to a true cross-section of the population. After that we're free to self-segregate, and we do with a vengeance. But in high school you can look out across the sea of shining faces and grasp just how insipid the general population is.
Last edited:
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line
Too many high school students are either biding "their time in that prison" or just looking to find ou when the next party is. Far too many students are not paying true attention to the lessons. Hell, I had a guy get mad at me for using the term "monotheistic" in an exercise describing what set the Jews apart from prior cultures and religions. He was closer to the norm for most of the kids in my school than not.
From what I gather kids self segregate in the lunch room.
- Status