Where Are We?

[BSB]

Some fine minds have been warning about a period of social/class unrest/warfare here in America for the past couple of years. You know, haves vs the have not's. 

In order for that to occur you need to have a breakdown of the major pressure relieving institutions like the banks/loaning institutions, government, public education, etc. I would say that a sufficient breakdown in some, but not all, of those institutions has occurred already.

So, what now? Revolution? Sorry Snowblower, this isn't a revolutionary moment and you need look no further than Cuba, and its total failure, to know why. 

Resurrect, and modernize, the institutions? That gets my vote. What stands in the way of that, however, is a lack of leadership to guide us through the change.  Obama? Proven to be unqualified. Romney? At this point I have seen very little leadership potential, certainly of the kind needed now. The rest of the GOP field? Nothing.

 Where's this leadership going to come from then? When we hit the beaches on D-Day, and officers were killed by the hundreds, the ordinary soldier stepped forward and took command. That was the major difference between us and the German Army. Their soldiers were better trained and had more experience, but they had an officer culture that made it very difficult, if not impossible, for an ordinary infantryman to take charge when a leader fell. So, where are we, America, now? Do we have an elite officer corps that precludes those who aren't in it from stepping forward, or are we still the old America that produces leadership from across the ranks?


BSB

[Michael Tee]

 <<Sorry Snowblower, this isn't a revolutionary moment>>

No, I agree.  Things haven't gotten bad enough yet.  The collapse and failure of capitalism is just in its initial phases.  As I wrote in an earlier post, this is like the 1905 revolution in Russia, just a precursor, and that's how it'll appear in about 2020, when the first history of the real Second American Revolution is written. 

BTW, for success of communism, I'd look more to China than Cuba - - the Cuban picture is somewhat clouded over by American sabotage and the blockade.

For failure of capitalism, I'd just look all around you; and over to Europe as well.

[Plane]

  Wow, that is a good question.

  It is so good a question that I suspect you have an answer.

[BSB]

What has produced China's economic resurgence? They allowed a free market to takeover in certain areas and then slowy increased it in size and scope.

BSB

[BSB]

If it's such a good question, plane, why not try and answer it?


BSB

[Plane]

  Well, it is a good one but a hard one.

    Democrats are highly disillusioned , the initial illusion was so beautiful.

     Republicans can smell the victory , but the front runner is a diffrent guy each week.

     Governor Christie is beloved for the lovely moderate he is , but the problems the next president must deal with made him conclude that Governorship is enough.

      You have to be a peculiar person to be President , you need to be kinda keen on yourself but never seem like a snob, you have to be a competent administrator and deligator willing to assume the ultimate responsibility of firring your best friends and assigning scapegoats.

      Could it be that there are never really a lot of good candidates?

      A courageous platoon leader might be made from half of the platoon , but the nation seems to have only five or six serious candidates for President.

Ever.

[BT]

Americans are still capable of rising to the challenge of whatever comes our way, isn't that what tea parties and #OWS is really all about? Filling the void.

[Plane]

   I wouldn't doubt that thousands of Americans have the administrative skill required of a President .

    And that 99% of these don't want it.

[BSB]

That doesn't answer the question though, plane.

If a leader steps forward from the ranks, will he be able to lead? In the German Army he couldn't. In our Army he could. It wasn't just who stepped forward. It was the willingness of our military to accept that process. 

Can a leader sit in the oval office and lead, or does he have to follow? It looks to me like Obama is following. It didn't look to me like Bush led anybody anywhere. He just pointed his finger at the devil and said lets get him. 

Are we willing to vote in a leader and then allow him to lead? Can congress debate the soundness of a proposal and then get behind it if its found to be warranted? Do we, as a nation, have that kind of courage anymore? Do we have what it takes to accept change? Not radical change that won't last, but real change that will put us in a better position to handle future events? Or are we so lacking in belief and courage now that we have to tie everything up with the rope of bipartisanism?

BSB

[Kramer]

   I wouldn't doubt that thousands of Americans have the administrative skill required of a President .

    And that 99% of these don't want it.

Then why do you think Obama wanted the job?

[Plane]

  I would be sorry to have a strong leader that was leading in a bad direction.


  I understand that historians sometimes divide Presidents into "strong" and "weak" presidents. Not on the basis of their strength of personality but on the basis of how much they allow the constitution to limit their power. In this continuuom George Washington is a weak president and Abriham Lincon was a strong one.

      If George Washington had of respected the Constitution less he would have injured the constitution and the rule of law, it is very good that he was "weak " in this respect.

    If Abraham Lincon had of hewed close to the letter of the law he might have been unable to avoid the dissolution of the Union.

    Are we really good at chooseing what we need , lucky or has God been good to us quite often?

      I think that Presidential quality does cycle , like many another thing does.

[Michael Tee]

I thought plane's comment about both the TP and the OWS "rising to fill the [leadership] void" was the most perceptive comment in the thread.

A lot of people who aren't professional politicians just know there's a void in the leadership of both parties and they're just stepping forward when they see nobody else willing to take the helm.  They want leadership and they sense there isn't any.

IMHO, the Democratic Party lost its ability to lead when they began chasing corporate and Wall Street donors instead of relying on their traditional base of organized labour and middle-class liberals and progressives.  They can't lead when they are trying to serve two masters, their base and their Wall Street donors.  Obama exacerbated the problem because he's too eager to please and too eager to compromise.

[Xavier_Onassis]

If Abraham Lincon had of hewed close to the letter of the law he might have been unable to avoid the dissolution of the Union.

===============================
 Lincoln was inaugurated March 4. South Carolina seceded on April 12, 1861, simply because Lincoln was from the slavery party.

The only thing Lincoln could have done was resign. It was not anything Lincoln did that caused the South to secede, it was Lincoln winning the election. The Oligarchy of the South was unwilling to make any concessions, and managed to convince the poor Whites to fight the war for them.

[Plane]

Americans are still capable of rising to the challenge of whatever comes our way, isn't that what tea parties and #OWS is really all about? Filling the void.

  Hey BT , do you ever mistake yourself for me?

[BT]

Only when I'm in the vicinity of Middle Georgia