Two Guesses

[Beet]

I suppose it's a bit like comparing apples to spark plugs to speak of such radically different eras together,

That depends on what your standard of comparison is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would get into the causes and reasons behind the the rise and endurance of the second party system. We all know what there was in 1960: an inspiring new President, soaring rhetoric, surging youth interest in politics, though not necessarily through participation by traditional means. In the 1820s and 1830s there was an expanded franchise, growing literacy, and the first efforts to organize parties a sense approaching the modern.

[Person Man]

That's a great way of putting it...but our nation is so much more different than it was in 1960 and 1828. There has to be a real dawn here. I mean, what could happen with two false dawns in a row. We are still reeling from Kent State, Vietnam and the collapse of the labor movement. What else could happen? - I will ask this-


WHAT'S THE WORST THAT CAN HAPPEN?

[Smid]

That's a great way of putting it...but our nation is so much more different than it was in 1960 and 1828. There has to be a real dawn here. I mean, what could happen with two false dawns in a row. We are still reeling from Kent State, Vietnam and the collapse of the labor movement. What else could happen? - I will ask this-


WHAT'S THE WORST THAT CAN HAPPEN?

In the book, Freedomnomics, Dr John Lott writes on page 173:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By "costly" and "easy" regulations, he is referring to regulations that make it easier or harder to cast a vote (for example, requiring voters to provide ID before voting).

It may be that the thirst for change in the 1960s dried up with the election of Richard Nixon. Rather than motivating young liberals to vote, it may in fact have reinforced a perception that their vote didn't count. Perhaps people were discouraged by the electoral loss of the Democrat candidate.

If this is the case, claims of voter fraud in Florida and Ohio in the past two presidential elections may actually harm the cause of the Democrats, because it is telling people that their vote doesn't count - that it doesn't matter whether or not they vote because the 'establishment' will ensure that a particular candidate will win regardless. It is typically those on the losing side that are discouraged from voting.

This message, I think, would be particularly re-inforced if McCain wins against Obama in November. A Republican win would probably discourage young people from participating in elections over the next few years, maybe even the next decade. It would particularly discourage them if a Republican win was coupled with further allegations of vote fraud. Indeed, it's probably best to tighten voting controls outside of the electoral cycle so that it isn't necessarily linked to one candidate's victory or the other. 

[Person Man]

...and if things get worse, could that lead to people acting "out of the system"?  i.e. Left-Wing Militias popping up?

[Smid]

Possibly, but I think it would be more likely to lead to apathy.

[Person Man]

What could be the policy changes? Although, what it could possibly leave to is mass emmigration. It wouldn't be the only time this happened. Ever heard of the "lost generation"? Well, after Bryant's and Wilson's false dawns, people just started to leave. Many Americans settled in London and Paris....and some in the Soviet Union.

[Smid]

Democrat policy changes? Or voting reforms?

I think the Democrats might need to move slightly to the right on some economic issues. In Australia, people receive a tax deduction for having private health insurance - valued at 1/3rd of their premium. This makes health insurance more affordable. On top of this, there is public hospitals as well, for those who can't afford private.

Ideologically, Democrats might not like that because it's not fully public and Republicans might not like it because it's government spending, but I think it's probably a sensible middle ground that might be acceptable to many Americans. Likewise our university education system...

The university education system is subsidised to a certain extent but students still have to pay a certain amount to attend. Students can pay up-front if they wish, in which case they receive a further discounted rate. If they don't pay up-front, they incur a debt to the Government, which then must be declared when they find employment. In addition to deducting taxes from their wages, the employer also deducts a certain amount for their education debt (HECS) - which is paid back at a rate proportionate to their income (I'm not sure how much, but it's a certain percentage of their income. I could pull out my pay slip and work it out, but that's too much effort). You only pay it back if you earn over a certain amount and it's indexed at CPI - rather than at a particular interest rate.

Again, it's probably too much market intervention to appeal to the Republican Party, not sure what the Democrats would think of it... It certainly would help parents paying off education expenses for their kids, or students who might otherwise need to take out a student loan. Anyway, I think it's probably still a sensible middle ground that's not too extreme to scare off voters with threats of escalating tax bills, but still making things a bit easier on some people. Don't know what you think of those ideas, but could be something you can think about.

[J. J.]

I could see, long term (2016-), a substantially more authoritarian government, with security as being the base.

[Beet]

That's a great way of putting it...but our nation is so much more different than it was in 1960 and 1828. There has to be a real dawn here. I mean, what could happen with two false dawns in a row. We are still reeling from Kent State, Vietnam and the collapse of the labor movement. What else could happen? - I will ask this-


WHAT'S THE WORST THAT CAN HAPPEN?

In the book, Freedomnomics, Dr John Lott writes on page 173:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By "costly" and "easy" regulations, he is referring to regulations that make it easier or harder to cast a vote (for example, requiring voters to provide ID before voting).

It may be that the thirst for change in the 1960s dried up with the election of Richard Nixon. Rather than motivating young liberals to vote, it may in fact have reinforced a perception that their vote didn't count. Perhaps people were discouraged by the electoral loss of the Democrat candidate.

If this is the case, claims of voter fraud in Florida and Ohio in the past two presidential elections may actually harm the cause of the Democrats, because it is telling people that their vote doesn't count - that it doesn't matter whether or not they vote because the 'establishment' will ensure that a particular candidate will win regardless. It is typically those on the losing side that are discouraged from voting.

This message, I think, would be particularly re-inforced if McCain wins against Obama in November. A Republican win would probably discourage young people from participating in elections over the next few years, maybe even the next decade. It would particularly discourage them if a Republican win was coupled with further allegations of vote fraud. Indeed, it's probably best to tighten voting controls outside of the electoral cycle so that it isn't necessarily linked to one candidate's victory or the other. 

In addition, groups of voters may simply not be in the habit of voting. Newly enfranchised groups in history have traditionally started out with lower turnout rates that only increased over time. This is a constant problem for younger voters, because younger voters are always "newly enfranchised" at age 18. This suggests that young people need to be "pushed" in the time before they become eligible to become interested in politics. The visit of a Presidential candidate to a high school, for example, or mock debates and elections; and finding other ways for teens to be involved instead of voting.

What I do like about the increased interest of today's younger people in politics and government- and not just from Obama but since 2000- is that there is essentially none of the radicalism and 'intellectual pilgrimmage' toward bankrupt totalitarian regimes that characterized and discredited the 60's movements.

But there are other low turnout groups too. Groups with lower than average turnout-- single people, poorer people, people with less knowledge about politics, new citizens, people in the south, people who haven't lived in one place for a long time-- tend to be the same types with a lesser stake in society, or who feel they have a lesser stake in society.

Undoubtedly, also, many voters may feel that politicians don't speak to them truthfully or with a straight attitude, or that politicians are only concerned about the wealthy and those with money.

[J. J.]

...and if things get worse, could that lead to people acting "out of the system"?  i.e. Left-Wing Militias popping up?

The closest the US ever can to that was in the late 1960's and 1970's.

[Person Man]

I know.....and it could happen again.

[J. J.]

I know.....and it could happen again.

That was the product of a very liberal period; I don't know if this would lead to a very leberal period.

[Person Man]

Though, there was conservative violence in that area, too....and it only died down as a result of conservative political power.

[J. J.]

Time to bump.

[Person Man]

One thing I would want to talk about in this thread are the risks of catacalysms in this time of change.

By 2025,
- Will WMDs be used?
- Will there be another war?
- Will there be a reccesion?
- Will there be a depression?
- Will life-saving science be abandonned?
- Will any other potentially world-changing sciences be abandonned?
- Will there be a large disaster that is much bigger than Katrina on the United States?

Another thing to consider-

What will society be by 2080-2150?

I mean, in today's understanding of political ideas-

Will America evolve into a far-left dystopia, like "Brave New World", will we have taken a center-left track, as seen on "Star-Trek". Or will we take a center-right approach that is found in "Starship Troopers" or a far-right approach found in "A Hand Maiden's Tale".

[J. J.]

You could see two situations:

1.  Obama wins and is the next Jimmy Carter, only worse.  Within 5 years of today there is Christian conservative Congress abnd President.

2.  McCain win and the evangelicals in the party are diminished.

[Smid]

You could see two situations:

1.  Obama wins and is the next Jimmy Carter, only worse.  Within 5 years of today there is Christian conservative Congress abnd President.

2.  McCain win and the evangelicals in the party are diminished.

I think that sounds about right.

[The Mikado]

By 2025,
- Will WMDs be used?

Depends on the WMD.  Chemical warfare was used extensively in the Iran-Iraq War and I wouldn't be surprised to see it again.  Biological warfare is less likely.  I don't see the return of nuclear warfare on the horizon.

- Will there be another war?

Another American war or another war in general?  If the former, probably yes.  If the latter, definitely yes.

- Will there be a reccesion?

Of course.

- Will there be a depression?

A year ago I'd have said "certainly not."  Today, it's more like, "no, unless a lot of things go very wrong at the same time."

- Will life-saving science be abandoned?

No.

- Will any other potentially world-changing sciences be abandoned?

Don't know what you're referring to, but ideas are abandoned all the time.

- Will there be a large disaster that is much bigger than Katrina on the United States?

God forbid.

[J. J.]

- Will WMDs be used?

Probambly at chemical weapons in a terrorist attack.

- Will there be another war?

Yes.

- Will there be a reccesion?

Yes.

- Will there be a depression?

Not like 1929, but I could see a return to the late 1970's type economy.

- Will life-saving science be abandoned?

No.

- Will any other potentially world-changing sciences be abandoned?

Ask Tesla.

- Will there be a large disaster that is much bigger than Katrina on the United States?

Yes, with number one being a possibility.

[War on Want]

Ummmmmmmm I hate to be an asshole but lots of your predictions seem to be pretty shaky/partisan to me. Then again mine are too, hope/bias is on all sides, just saying.

[War on Want]

By 2025,
- Will WMDs be used?
Nope, our security systems have evolved to the point where this is pretty possible. Terrorism is mostly on the run and its days are numbered especially if the American government becomes even a little popular in the Middle East
- Will there be another war?
More likely but I would see another war in the future being more of a humanitarian war and less of a war for other reasons. Also chances are it would be small.
- Will there be a reccesion?
Yes, almost for sure.
- Will there be a depression?
Possibly, I doubt it though.
- Will life-saving science be abandonned?
No, I see the world as a whole becoming more scientific.
- Will any other potentially world-changing sciences be abandonned?
No way, except possibly cloning and other "immoral" forms of science that could be applied to agriculture and end many food shortages.
- Will there be a large disaster that is much bigger than Katrina on the United States?
I think most definatley this will happen, though it will be a multi-pronged disaster.

Another thing to consider-

What will society be by 2080-2150?
Oh boy this is hard to predict. I think American society has two paths, one that is much more White, more nationalistic, and that leads to the downfall of American society with possible chaos erupting. It depends on events though but this is very possible.
Another possibility is that we become much more multicultural, liberal, a la European society and essentially become an extention of what I like to call the modern first world society, aka very secularist, very free market based but with cradle to grave benefits, high technology, but the main difference is we would very possibly be competing with them.

[J. J.]

Ummmmmmmm I hate to be an asshole but lots of your predictions seem to be pretty shaky/partisan to me. Then again mine are too, hope/bias is on all sides, just saying.

I'm not sure "partisan" would apply to my most recent answers.

I do think that if Republicans are elected that are seen as being outside of the "religious right," that will weaken the influence of the religious right.

I'd say the same about Black voters and the Democratic Party. 

[War on Want]

Ummmmmmmm I hate to be an asshole but lots of your predictions seem to be pretty shaky/partisan to me. Then again mine are too, hope/bias is on all sides, just saying.

I'm not sure "partisan" would apply to my most recent answers.

I do think that if Republicans are elected that are seen as being outside of the "religious right," that will weaken the influence of the religious right.

I'd say the same about Black voters and the Democratic Party. 

No I meant with terrorism. I should have clarified, also I thought your assesment of Obama was a little partisan. I don't think it would be a great presidency but worse than Carter...

[J. J.]

Ummmmmmmm I hate to be an asshole but lots of your predictions seem to be pretty shaky/partisan to me. Then again mine are too, hope/bias is on all sides, just saying.

I'm not sure "partisan" would apply to my most recent answers.

I do think that if Republicans are elected that are seen as being outside of the "religious right," that will weaken the influence of the religious right.

I'd say the same about Black voters and the Democratic Party. 

No I meant with terrorism. I should have clarified, also I thought your assesment of Obama was a little partisan. I don't think it would be a great presidency but worse than Carter...

First, I don't see a terrorist attack as being based on what party is control.

Second, I'm looking at the House seat change from 1974-6 and 1980.  I think it was a high 40's shift, without redistricting and the GOP base was lower (about 144-7 seats).  In 2010, there will be redistricting, and probably an upswing in the opposition party control of the state legislatures.  If it's Obama, he'll have to overcome that.  In short, evens could make it much worse than Carter.

Now, Obama's job performance is unknowable, but I have to look at a candidate who made the "God and guns" comment and his lack of experience (Carter was more experienced as an administrator).  Unable to relate to the population and inexperienced are not promising.

[Smid]

Ummmmmmmm I hate to be an asshole but lots of your predictions seem to be pretty shaky/partisan to me. Then again mine are too, hope/bias is on all sides, just saying.

I'm not sure "partisan" would apply to my most recent answers.

I do think that if Republicans are elected that are seen as being outside of the "religious right," that will weaken the influence of the religious right.

I'd say the same about Black voters and the Democratic Party. 

No I meant with terrorism. I should have clarified, also I thought your assesment of Obama was a little partisan. I don't think it would be a great presidency but worse than Carter...

First, I don't see a terrorist attack as being based on what party is control.

Second, I'm looking at the House seat change from 1974-6 and 1980.  I think it was a high 40's shift, without redistricting and the GOP base was lower (about 144-7 seats).  In 2010, there will be redistricting, and probably an upswing in the opposition party control of the state legislatures.  If it's Obama, he'll have to overcome that.  In short, evens could make it much worse than Carter.

Now, Obama's job performance is unknowable, but I have to look at a candidate who made the "God and guns" comment and his lack of experience (Carter was more experienced as an administrator).  Unable to relate to the population and inexperienced are not promising.

A bad presidency by Obama could lead to many disillusioned Democrats switching to the GOP - particularly in the south.