Political left appear willing to drive off a cliff to prove they're right. - 25-Jan-2010 - Generational Dynamics

My favorite metaphor these days is to be "willing to drive off a cliff to prove you're right."

The Republicans, who polls show are as unpopular as the Democrats, have no power, no strategy and no leader. This is turning out to be to their benefit, since it means that they keep their mouths shut most of the time.

But the Democrats appear to be so consumed with hatred that they're determined to commit suicide. Probably the poster boy for this suicidal hatred is MSNBC's ardent Obama supporter, Keith Olbermann. On the day before Tuesday's election of Republican Scott Brown as Massachusetts Senator, Olbermann said:

"You may not have heard Scott Brown support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, or describing two women having a child as being, quote, 'just not normal.' ... In Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees. ... The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States."

What does one make of such a hate-filled, self-destructive statement? Is Olbermann too stupid to know how much damage he's doing to the causes he claims to support? Or is Olbermann, born in 1959 on the cusp of Gen-Xerdom, just following basal nihilistic Gen-Xer instincts and destroying everything in his path just to improve his ratings?

Not that he's improving his ratings. Ratings of MSNBC and other mainstream news media are plunging like necklines in summer against the Fox News Channel (FNC).

In fact, Fox News is cleaning up against everyone, according to TV By the Numbers. On Election night, for example,

Now, FNC does indeed lean to the right, but not as far to the right (in my opinion) as CNN and MSNBC lean to the left.

And this is nothing new. I started watching CNN in 1980, when it first came on the air. Its coverage of the Gulf War in 1990 was spectacular. By the mid 1990s, it had the best international news coverage in the world, except perhaps for the BBC.

The turning point came in 1998, with the Tailwind Scandal, where CNN erroneously accused the U.S. military of using nerve gas in a mission to kill American defectors in Laos during the Vietnam War.

By the 2006 elections, CNN was turning the entire network over to the Democratic party. By spring of 2009, it had really hit bottom, as I wrote in "Vile 'teabagging' jokes signal the deterioration of CNN and NBC news." The practice of using unbelievably offensive "teabag" references to "tea party" supporters -- and this practice continues to this day -- continues to show how deep in the sewer mainstream media has gone, and how willing these so-called journalists are to drive off a cliff to prove that they're right.

Moving toward the center

President Obama the pragmatist would like to move toward the political center, but it's obvious that the loony left is not going to allow him to do so.

A good example is Paul Krugman, who used to be an economist decades ago, but now only plays one on tv. Here's what he wrote earlier this week:

"He Wasn’t The One We’ve Been Waiting For

Health care reform — which is crucial for millions of Americans — hangs in the balance. Progressives are desperately in need of leadership; more specifically, House Democrats need to be told to pass the Senate bill, which isn’t what they wanted but is vastly better than nothing. And what we get from the great progressive hope, the man who was offering hope and change, is this:

"I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on. We know that we need insurance reform, that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of people. We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don’t, then our budgets are going to blow up and we know that small businesses are going to need help so that they can provide health insurance to their families. Those are the core, some of the core elements of, to this bill. Now I think there’s some things in there that people don’t like and legitimately don’t like."

In short, “Run away, run away”!

Maybe House Democrats can pull this out, even with a gaping hole in White House leadership. Barney Frank seems to have thought better of his initial defeatism. But I have to say, I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in."

This is quite a remarkable statement. Obama tries to move toward the center, and Krugman calls it "running away." And then Krugman says that he's going to give up on Obama. With friends like these, Obama doesn't need enemies. In particular, the Republicans can just sit back and enjoy the show.

Krugman won the Nobel Prize last year because he had the major qualification that the Nobel committee was looking for: He hated George Bush. If Krugman turns his back on Obama, do you think he'll win another Nobel prize?

Barack Obama vs Lyndon Johnson

The loony ideology of people like Krugman and Olbermann isn't President Obama's only problem. He also has to deal with journalists and pundits who adore him but are incredibly naļve. That was pretty clear listening to the Sunday news talk shows.

A good example today was Fareed Zakaria, appearing on his Sunday news show GPS on CNN. Zakaria is something of a contradiction these days. He's way over on the left politically, but he's not imbued with the sheer hatred of people like Olbermann and Krugman.

Zakaria is also a contradiction because he's well-read, well-studied, he knows a lot about what's going on in the world, and yet he seems totally unable to grasp what it all means. I first wrote about Zakaria in 2006 in "Learning-disabled journalists and politicians continue to predict Iraq civil war," quoting him as saying, "If you look at the last 3-4 months, it's absolutely clear that a civil war dynamic has set in. This is happening. ... The trend is moving in the wrong direction on every issue that relates to a building civil war."

Now of course Zakaria was 100% wrong about this. (See, for example, "Brookings Institution does a full reversal on Iraq war.") And Zakaria, who sports a broad teethy smile, turns out to be wrong about most things. But he still produces a good show on CNN on Sunday that's worth watching.

Today's show (transcript here) is a good example because it shows how a complete lack of understanding of generational theory leads you to dramatically wrong conclusions (as was the case with his Iraqi civil war theory).

Fareed and his guests looked to the experiences of past Democratic presidents to help them conclude what President Obama should do next. Here's how he introduced his show:

"So, let's start with some historical perspective. Obama's approval ratings one year into his tenure are roughly the same as Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter's were. The two Bushes had higher ratings -- 41 because of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and 44 because of 9/11 and the rallying effect that had on the presidency.

So, Obama's situation is not dramatically worse than many of his predecessors, which means it can be corrected.

But what should he do? I would put it very simply. Obama needs to start acting like a president, and particularly the president he campaigned to become.

For the last six months, Barack Obama has seemed to be not a president, but a prime minister. He has not outlined a broad vision for the country and put forward grand plans to solve the nation's problems."

I cannot imagine a more dramatic misreading of what's going on. he says that Obama "has not outlined a broad vision for the country and put forward grand plans to solve the nation's problems."

Obama was nothing BUT broad visions. He was going to heal the world with his mere presence -- cure global warming, provide universal health care, close Guantanamo, leave Iraq in peace, bring a two-state solution to Palestinians and Israelis, beat the Taliban in Afghanistan, restore the stock market bubble, and dismantle President Bush's war against terror. Nothing was beyond his reach. Unfortunately it now turns out that he was "all hat, but no cattle," (as the midwesterners like to say), but no one can credibly claim he had no broad visions. He was just in over his head.

But the most interesting part of Zakaria's theory are his comparisons to past Presidents. If he knew even the simplest facts about generational theory, he wouldn't compare President Obama, governing during a generational Crisis era, with Presidents who governed in generational Awakening and Unraveling eras. There simply is no basis for comparison.

In particular, let's move forward in the tv show to some statements by one of his guests, Robert Caro, a biographer of President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ).

Caro's comparison of LBJ to Obama is so out of touch with reality, it's bizarre. Caro wants Obama to push health care reform through Congress with the same kind of "legislative genius" that LBJ used to get the Civil Rights act through Congress. In particular, he describes how he got cooperation from some Southern Democrats, who normally sided with the Republicans. He describes how LBJ did it:

"You say, what is legislative genius? He wants to get the first civil rights bill through. He needs a -- there are Southerners who will let it go to the next level, if they can get a guarantee that they can filibuster and hold it up on a future level.

Johnson needs 10 or 12 votes that he can deliver to the South. He says, what can I find? He finds the Western Democrats. What do they want? He says, I have to find something that 12 senators want enough to go along with the South on this.

And he finds Hells Canyon Dam on the Snake River, which divides Idaho or Oregon. He says, they've been fighting for this for 20 years for federal power. The South, if I can get Richard Russell, the head of the Southern Democrats, to agree to give them Hells Canyon, the South will let the bill move forward to the next level.

And he gets 12 votes.

If we had seen a stroke of genius like -- what else is legislative genius? Johnson is on the floor during this...

There's a moment where he's going to lose. There's about to be a vote called. He's going to lose. He's standing next to the senator from New Mexico, Clinton Anderson, and he sees that Anderson, a liberal, has been doodling on a paragraph, and changing it around.

And he says, "That'll work." He says, "Introduce it, introduce it now."

And Anderson says, "I can't introduce it. I'm too liberal. They won't trust me."

He says, "Get a good Republican."

He looks around and he says, "Get Aiken." George Aiken of Vermont ... who was working on it. He says -- Aiken introduces it, and the bill passes.

We don't see legislative genius like that anymore, I'm sorry.

It's an interesting story, about "horse trading" to get legislation passed, and Caro wants Obama to do the same kind of thing that LBJ did.

Why is this historian so dense? Why doesn't it occur to him that this comparison makes no sense, because the country was so different in 1965?

In 1965, the country was still on a "high." We had beaten the Great Depression, and we knew we could do it again if we had to. We had beaten the Nazis, and we knew we could do it again if we had to. The country was very confident about itself.

The leaders in Congress at that time were people whose fathers had fought in the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans had fought the South, and had freed the slaves. The Democrats had opposed fighting the war, and were feeling "liberal guilt" for having done so. The Southern Democrats were a special case. They were philosophically close to the Republicans, but couldn't be in the political party that had beaten the South.

The country was well into a general Awakening era. It had been launched two years earlier, in the great civil rights march on Washington in 1963, led by Martin Luther King. Then, in 1964, the beloved President John Kennedy had been assassinated.

Everything's upside down today. There's enormous anxiety over the economy and over terrorism. There's no "guilt" over health care. There's no sense of unity from having beaten a common enemy.

LBJ's "legislative genius" was more a product of generational era than of anything else. His "horse trading" worked because the climate was right.

Obama has been trying "horse trading" as well, to get the health care bill passed. LBJ's "Hells Canyon Dam" may have been a stroke of genius, but the numerous corrupt deals (known as the "Louisiana purchase" and the "Cornhusker's kickback") are only provoking anger today.

Caro, Zakaria, Krugman and the others are all living in the past. They're dreaming of the 60s, 70s, or 80s, when the GI and Silent Generations were still in charge, and compromise was still possible, because there was a sense of common purpose. There's no such sense of common purpose today, so LBJ's "horse trading" cannot possibly work.

Waiting for the regeneracy

What we're seeing here is generational theory and Generational Dynamics in action. This kind of political bickering is standard fare at the beginning of a generational Crisis era. For example, you can can google "FDR scandals," and you'll see that the political bickering for Franklin Roosevelt was equally bad. But once the Pearl Harbor attack occurred in 1941, the nation began to unify behind the President.

An event like the Pearl Harbor attack is called a "regeneracy event" in generational theory. It's an event that regenerates civic unity for the first time since the end of the preceding crisis war, World War II, in this case.

Today, the country is almost just waiting for a "regeneracy event." It might be a terrorist attack on American soil, or it might be an overseas military disaster. But whatever it is, it will end the bickering, and regenerate civic unity again.

Universal health care may be dead for now, but it's not dead forever. This is the wrong time for this kind of legislation. In September I called Obama's bill a proposal of economic insanity, because it's basically a rehash of President Richard Nixon's wage and price controls, applied to health care. That was a disaster, and Obama's proposal is sure to be as well.

If you want to reduce health care costs, then the only way to do it is to increase the supply of health care services -- more doctors, nurses, hospitals and equipment. Obama's health care proposal does the opposite. But once the Clash of Civilizations world war is over, in 5-10 years, then universal health care will revived, and it will pass. And President Obama may still get some of the credit.

Investors driving off a cliff

What I've been describing in politics and media also appears to be happening in the investor community. Here's how "xakzen" described it in the Generational Dynamics forum:

"My anecdotal experience is that our society is becoming stratified into those who know something is wrong and have changed their behavior and those who continue to believe that everything is okay and the worst of the crisis has past. This became apparent to me when I asked my Sunday school kids what they got for Christmas. The answers ranged from 1 kid getting an ipod, DSi, pellet gun & $100 iTunes card to another kid who along with his 3 siblings got a kitten. I know the families of both and the difference is the latter kid's dad was recently laid off and is now delivering pizza and of course the former kid's dad has a government job."

I've noticed this stratification as well. The stratification seems to be similar to the political split between Republicans and Democrats. Each side is absolutely convinced the other side is wrong, and is willing to drive off a cliff to prove it. I can't prove it, but I believe that the stratification among investors is related to the divisions among politicians.

If you listen to CNBC or read the Wall Street Journal, you could easily believe that all mainstream financial pundits are agreed that the only direction is up with the stock market, or that the worst that will happen is a minor new recession.

That actually isn't true. There are quite a few mainstream financial experts who believe that the situation is far more serious.

A web site reader pointed me to an article entitled "12 'Dr. Dooms' warn Wall Street's optimism misleads, will trigger new crash."

For example, according to the article, Money manager Jeremy Grantham warns that our irrational nightmare will repeat. A year ago we came dangerously close to the "Great Depression 2." Unfortunately, we've "learned nothing ... condemning ourselves to another serious financial crisis in the not too-distant future." We had our bear-market rally. Next, historical cycles plus our irrational behavior guarantees another, bigger global meltdown. We "learned nothing." There are 11 more like that in the article.

Why don't we hear from these people more often on CNBC and in the Wall Street Journal?

We actually have an analogy for that if we look at climate change scandal that was triggered by the release of thousands of hacked e-mail messages from climate change scientists. The hacked e-mail messages showed a pattern of deception and fraud by these "scientists." The scientists urge one another to smooth over data and hide unfavorable data; to enforce a unified view; and to blackball scientists with opposing views.

The same kind of massive corruption happened in Washington in the negotiations for the health care bill that passed the Senate. And when last Tuesday's Massachusetts election blew things apart, the mainstream media has been filled with oozing contempt for Scott Brown. The most extreme example, of course, is MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, calling him an "irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman."

Thus, Tuesday's election has performed the same role for the health care bill that the hacked e-mail messages did for climate change. In both cases, the mainstream politicians and the mainstream media had overwhelmingly adopted the "politically correct" position -- supporting climate change legislation and supporting the health care bill. And in both cases, the mainstream politicians and media simply showed contempt when the corruption was exposed.

But what about investors? Is it really even possible that Democratic supporters are more invested in the current stock market than Republicans?

There are certainly some obvious examples of that. Warren Buffett seems almost erotically in love with Barack Obama, and he's been saying loudly and often that the worst is over.

But that's just one example. Is there a trend? I actually suspect that there is, but I have no way of proving it or disproving it.

One thing's for sure. Just as the hacked e-mail messages caused the climate change support to collapse, just as the election of Scott Brown signaled the end of health care legislation, the coming financial crisis will be a devastating blow to investors who believe that it's ok to invest in a stock market with a P/E ratio over 80, just because Barack Obama is President.

Generational Dynamics Web Log for 25-Jan-2010
Political left appear willing to drive off a cliff to prove they're right.

Moving toward the center

Barack Obama vs Lyndon Johnson

Waiting for the regeneracy

Investors driving off a cliff

Web Log Pages

	Generational Dynamics
	Forecasting America's Destiny ... and the World's

\| HOME \| WEB LOG \| COUNTRY WIKI \| COMMENT \| FORUM \| DOWNLOADS \| ABOUT \|

Generational Dynamics Web Log for 25-Jan-2010 Political left appear willing to drive off a cliff to prove they're right.

Moving toward the center

Barack Obama vs Lyndon Johnson

Waiting for the regeneracy

Investors driving off a cliff

Web Log Pages

Generational Dynamics Web Log for 25-Jan-2010
Political left appear willing to drive off a cliff to prove they're right.