Two Guesses

[MarkWarner08]

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.

Worse than Jimmy Carter? How is that possible?

You could see two situations:
2.  McCain win and the evangelicals in the party are diminished.

If anything, the Dobsonites will support primary challenges in 2010 that will further bifurcate the GOP between the economic folks (default secularists) and the evangelicals.

[Person Man]

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.

Worse than Jimmy Carter? How is that possible?

You could see two situations:
2.  McCain win and the evangelicals in the party are diminished.

If anything, the Dobsonites will support primary challenges in 2010 that will further bifurcate the GOP between the economic folks (default secularists) and the evangelicals.

That's probably right.

I am also thinking that if Obama does SOMETHING different and things don't get any worse, I think we could be on the way to a more progressive country. Basically, no one knows what will happen after or before November 5, 2008. I mean, if McCain wins, that could have the same effect of a bad Obama administration- people could simply become more dissillusioned with progressive politics and there could be massive reprocussions on the Left. Maybe the democratic party will go the way of the whigs. I mean, do you see a future for the Democratic Party if their platform is discredited?

[Person Man]

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.

I think this question is really based on how America will react to Fareed Zakaria's globalized world where all of the peoples of the Earth might more or less be equal by the second half of the twenty-first century. There are really two ways we can deal with-

- Join the world that we created and bask in the glory of a 500 year old project coming to fruition. This will mean a world a lot like the center-left countries of Britian, Japan and Germany (more or less), Czech Republic and the Netherlands. Basically, the United States joining a world based around a democratized free market society.

-Continue our current policies of trying to bask in the glory of the state of nature, by seeing the sole role of Government as to protect the state of nature. With this cycle in place, we will continue to place loyalty ahead of responsibility and basically become what the Soviet Union was in the 1980s or what the Roman Empire was in the early 400s. We will essentially be a relic of history trying to rule over a dying Empire based on glory, rather than the needs of whom it serves. We will become the Empire of Discontents and an Empire that is solely the creation and property of its various masters. The United States will simply be a collection of warlords vying for the most amount of territory and eventually, the forces of the outside world, feeling ever threatened by a large, aging empire, will come to feast on a dying carcass that has been weakened by corruption, war and demagoguery. By 2075, a time in which many of us may be still living our last days, the United States could simply be what the Soviet Union was by 1995, a semi-failed state that was hemmoraging and being dragging into the modern world through a wood chipper. Or it could be like the Roman Empire in the year 500 AD, basically a failed state in which much of its territory is now governed by non-state colonial interests from outside. I can see half the country being partitioned between various local governments, businesses and ethic minorities that have succeded the nation.

[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.

Worse than Jimmy Carter? How is that possible?

You could see two situations:
2.  McCain win and the evangelicals in the party are diminished.

If anything, the Dobsonites will support primary challenges in 2010 that will further bifurcate the GOP between the economic folks (default secularists) and the evangelicals.

That's probably right.

I am also thinking that if Obama does SOMETHING different and things don't get any worse, I think we could be on the way to a more progressive country. Basically, no one knows what will happen after or before November 5, 2008. I mean, if McCain wins, that could have the same effect of a bad Obama administration- people could simply become more dissillusioned with progressive politics and there could be massive reprocussions on the Left. Maybe the democratic party will go the way of the whigs. I mean, do you see a future for the Democratic Party if their platform is discredited?

The odds on an Obama failure (due to lack of experience) are high.

There is also another problem.  Having a black president breaks down barriers, but it also removes a very powerful argument that that the country discriminates.  You could see a dismantling of race based affirmative action.  You could see a total end to affirmative action and, in future elections, the black electorate being totally taken for granted or candidates from both parties using the urban black electorate as scapegoats.  That is at least partly true with a successful Obama presidency.

[Person Man]

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.

Worse than Jimmy Carter? How is that possible?

You could see two situations:
2.  McCain win and the evangelicals in the party are diminished.

If anything, the Dobsonites will support primary challenges in 2010 that will further bifurcate the GOP between the economic folks (default secularists) and the evangelicals.

That's probably right.

I am also thinking that if Obama does SOMETHING different and things don't get any worse, I think we could be on the way to a more progressive country. Basically, no one knows what will happen after or before November 5, 2008. I mean, if McCain wins, that could have the same effect of a bad Obama administration- people could simply become more dissillusioned with progressive politics and there could be massive reprocussions on the Left. Maybe the democratic party will go the way of the whigs. I mean, do you see a future for the Democratic Party if their platform is discredited?

The odds on an Obama failure (due to lack of experience) are high.

There is also another problem.  Having a black president breaks down barriers, but it also removes a very powerful argument that that the country discriminates.  You could see a dismantling of race based affirmative action.  You could see a total end to affirmative action and, in future elections, the black electorate being totally taken for granted or candidates from both parties using the urban black electorate as scapegoats.  That is at least partly true with a successful Obama presidency.

Maybe if this was a different period, maybe you would be right. I think the entire black issue will depend on how his presidency goes or whether he even wins. I mean, if he loses, it will because most Americans are so pissed off at him that they are willing to live in Bush's America for four more years. Obama will have to  up royally to lose this election, and if he does, Black America could be blamed for creating a politician that was so close to the White House, yet so destructive to America. This would basically cause a "black lash" that could cause a total end to affirmative action AND possible re-segragation (I mean, black nationalists want it and the Supreme Court seems willing to grant it). I mean, if Barack Obama, the first black candidate, is so hated by the American People and so attached with this ethic identity, some of that hatred is going to fall to the black people, themselves.

However, if there is an Obama presidency, it may help with the integration of the black culture into American society. Sure, Obama is inexpierenced, but will this simply mean that he is more opened to be influenced by an age of which we even avoid speculating about?

[J. J.]

Maybe if this was a different period, maybe you would be right. I think the entire black issue will depend on how his presidency goes or whether he even wins. I mean, if he loses, it will because most Americans are so pissed off at him that they are willing to live in Bush's America for four more years. Obama will have to  up royally to lose this election, and if he does, Black America could be blamed for creating a politician that was so close to the White House, yet so destructive to America. This would basically cause a "black lash" that could cause a total end to affirmative action AND possible re-segragation (I mean, black nationalists want it and the Supreme Court seems willing to grant it). I mean, if Barack Obama, the first black candidate, is so hated by the American People and so attached with this ethic identity, some of that hatred is going to fall to the black people, themselves.

No, for this reason.  The nomination of Obama will drive people that vote principally on race out of the Democratic Party.  For it to have the full effect that I've described, Obama will have to be elected and discredited.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, first, he has to understand the different culture.  He's failed at that (and if he loses, he'll have four years to understand it).

[Person Man]

Maybe if this was a different period, maybe you would be right. I think the entire black issue will depend on how his presidency goes or whether he even wins. I mean, if he loses, it will because most Americans are so pissed off at him that they are willing to live in Bush's America for four more years. Obama will have to  up royally to lose this election, and if he does, Black America could be blamed for creating a politician that was so close to the White House, yet so destructive to America. This would basically cause a "black lash" that could cause a total end to affirmative action AND possible re-segragation (I mean, black nationalists want it and the Supreme Court seems willing to grant it). I mean, if Barack Obama, the first black candidate, is so hated by the American People and so attached with this ethic identity, some of that hatred is going to fall to the black people, themselves.

No, for this reason.  The nomination of Obama will drive people that vote principally on race out of the Democratic Party.  For it to have the full effect that I've described, Obama will have to be elected and discredited.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, first, he has to understand the different culture.  He's failed at that (and if he loses, he'll have four years to understand it).

...and they haven't already. Economically, you are 20 years ahead, but socially, you are 40 years behind. ...and you don't think someone will be blamed for making the Republican Party invincible in the White House? ...and are you sure that Obama will ever want a re-match if he loses and you are even more sure that he understands American culture any less than any other president in modern American history, with the exception of Clinton or maybe Ford? I mean, you make all of these generalisations that create more questions than answers and have predicted Obama's downfall for two or three times now. Maybe the fourth (him losing) or fifth (him being discredited) will be the charm, right?

[Colin]

By 2025,
- Will WMDs be used?

Most likely not. Even countries hostile to the United States know that if they are implicated in helping terrorists release these weapons they basically cease to exist. Terrorists know that this is probably the one act that will turn most of the world, including the Muslim world, against them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are always wars.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, probably a three year economic downturn akin to the late 80s/early 90s recession or the late 70s.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, unless a large section of the world financial community, the Federal Reserve, the IMF, World Bank, and the President screw up royally which is highly unlikely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh...no. Especially with the growing baby boomer population, anything that delays aging, keeps people alive longer, and can make a huge profit from that will be researched vigorously.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, when have we ever abandoned a science? When? I can't think of a single example since the Dark Ages where some sort of science has been abandoned. Some interesting projects have been abandoned, the XB-70 Mach 3 strategic bomber anyone?, but that was usually because there was no longer a need for those projects because better technologies became available.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My money would be on no but you can never tell with mother nature.

[Person Man]

By 2025,
- Will WMDs be used?

Most likely not. Even countries hostile to the United States know that if they are implicated in helping terrorists release these weapons they basically cease to exist. Terrorists know that this is probably the one act that will turn most of the world, including the Muslim world, against them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are always wars.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, probably a three year economic downturn akin to the late 80s/early 90s recession or the late 70s.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, unless a large section of the world financial community, the Federal Reserve, the IMF, World Bank, and the President screw up royally which is highly unlikely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh...no. Especially with the growing baby boomer population, anything that delays aging, keeps people alive longer, and can make a huge profit from that will be researched vigorously.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, when have we ever abandoned a science? When? I can't think of a single example since the Dark Ages where some sort of science has been abandoned. Some interesting projects have been abandoned, the XB-70 Mach 3 strategic bomber anyone?, but that was usually because there was no longer a need for those projects because better technologies became available.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My money would be on no but you can never tell with mother nature.

So, the world will keep rolling, but will probably go through a shift like it did in the 70s.

[Colin]

So, the world will keep rolling, but will probably go through a shift like it did in the 70s.

Yeah pretty much. The world is too interconnected now for a major war to start, it's financial system is too secure to fail as it did during the Great Depression, and there is no major catalist for any sort of revolutionary change on the horizon. There will be a slump, I'd say more late 80s than 70s but it's really just a matter of semantics, and then growth. I think you're to quick to assume that the future is all doom and gloom. I'm not saying its bright and cheery either, just that it will keep on moving along. The world will grow more multipolar, of course, but the US wont go all "rogue nation" on everybody, it's played the multipolar game before and will learn to do so again. It's status isn't going anywhere, it'll stay a major power, barring any incredibly crippling scenarios, for at least the next century or two. The international "club", so to speak, will grow larger but the basic structure will remain.

[Person Man]

So, the world will keep rolling, but will probably go through a shift like it did in the 70s.

Yeah pretty much. The world is too interconnected now for a major war to start, it's financial system is too secure to fail as it did during the Great Depression, and there is no major catalist for any sort of revolutionary change on the horizon. There will be a slump, I'd say more late 80s than 70s but it's really just a matter of semantics, and then growth. I think you're to quick to assume that the future is all doom and gloom. I'm not saying its bright and cheery either, just that it will keep on moving along. The world will grow more multipolar, of course, but the US wont go all "rogue nation" on everybody, it's played the multipolar game before and will learn to do so again. It's status isn't going anywhere, it'll stay a major power, barring any incredibly crippling scenarios, for at least the next century or two. The international "club", so to speak, will grow larger but the basic structure will remain.

That's probably the way things will naturally work. Life sort of moves through the path of least resistance. The one thing I am concerned about is the idea that socially conservative policies may make the United States less competitive. No business or individual will want to live or stay in the United States if ; the healthcare system is inefficient, the infrastructure is bad, dangerous and unreliable, the police are oppressive and biomedical research, or any other research with metaphysical significance is over-regulated. Then again, no one will want to move here or stay here if it's too expensive, too hard to make a profit or there is too many people on the street making the average person uncomfortable. In our globalized world, individual countries may be assessed like individual states are today.

For example, one may want to live or do business in Texas because taxes, labor and housing are cheap. However, they may choose to live or work in New York if the conservative culture in Texas overregulates their business, makes the roads, insurance providers and schools unreliable and makes them uncomfortable. Then again, there could be countries that are a lot like Nevada, where it is uncomfortable to live, but a good place to do business or enjoy yourself or like Florida or Georgia, where the opposite might be true.

[J. J.]

...and they haven't already. Economically, you are 20 years ahead, but socially, you are 40 years behind. ...and you don't think someone will be blamed for making the Republican Party invincible in the White House? ...and are you sure that Obama will ever want a re-match if he loses and you are even more sure that he understands American culture any less than any other president in modern American history, with the exception of Clinton or maybe Ford? I mean, you make all of these generalisations that create more questions than answers and have predicted Obama's downfall for two or three times now. Maybe the fourth (him losing) or fifth (him being discredited) will be the charm, right?

I don't think Obama, losing, will make the GOP "invincible," by a long shot. 

No, I've said that Obama doesn't understand working class white culture, not "American" culture.  I do think Bill Clinton has a better understanding of it than possibly most of the recent US presidents, possibly excepting Ronald Reagan.

I'm talking largely about trends over the next 8-12 years.  Of course I won't have details. 

[Person Man]

Another issue that makes your prognostics weak is the idea that you expect the early 21st century to be like the late 20th.

[J. J.]

Another issue that makes your prognostics weak is the idea that you expect the early 21st century to be like the late 20th.

No, I expect it potentially to be much different than the mid-20th Century.  But you seen not to have read Santayana.

[Person Man]

Another issue that makes your prognostics weak is the idea that you expect the early 21st century to be like the late 20th.

No, I expect it potentially to be much different than the mid-20th Century.  But you seen not to have read Santayana.

I haven't. Is it like Ortega? Tell me about it. To tell you the truth, one should look at small, fast growing-trends than large and old trends.

[J. J.]

Another issue that makes your prognostics weak is the idea that you expect the early 21st century to be like the late 20th.

No, I expect it potentially to be much different than the mid-20th Century.  But you seen not to have read Santayana.

I haven't. Is it like Ortega? Tell me about it. To tell you the truth, one should look at small, fast growing-trends than large and old trends.

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

Actually, you are looking at fads, the political equivalent of Hula Hoops, Pet Rocks and Cabbage Patch Kids.

I'm not actually making too many predictions, except that a change is coming.  Obama, this time, is not the change.  Some examples are his sudden shift on positions to a more moderate stance.  The "new politics" isn't here as of yet.  I think we will see something very new, and very different, politically, between now and 2016.  I don't know what that change will look like, but it could end up taking the country in a more right wing direction (even to a point where I would, not changing any beliefs, be considered on the left of the GOP). 

In 1978-79, when I began forming my political views, I was considered far right.  I supported a fairly right wing candidate, George H. W. Bush.  By 1982-3, I was not right wing; I was moderate.  I hadn't changed, the country did.

On a more macro scale, in 1976, the person who would become arguably the most successful president of the second half of the 20th Century could not get his party's nomination, on the second try.

In 1928, the country rejected Al Smith, soundly, as the more liberal/progressive candidate.  In 1936 and 1940, he became a leader of the forces who opposed FDR for being too liberal.

There are shifts, but how they will go is beyond me at this point.

[Person Man]

Well, besides the fact of what you think about the candidates in question, what could be farther right than what we have now? Have we ever been farther to the right in say- the past 70 or 80 years?


I mean, I am guessing we will probably return to the 60s and 70s if Obama or some succesor who takes up his cause is succesful and pushes the country back to the center-left....but what would happen if this country went any further right? Would that even be considered "change"?

[J. J.]

Well, besides the fact of what you think about the candidates in question, what could be farther right than what we have now? Have we ever been farther to the right in say- the past 70 or 80 years?

I would say yes, prior to FDR.  You actually had citizens deported in the red scare.

[/quote]
I mean, I am guessing we will probably return to the 60s and 70s if Obama or some succesor who takes up his cause is succesful and pushes the country back to the center-left....but what would happen if this country went any further right? Would that even be considered "change"?

[/quote]

Believe me, the county could move substantially to the right.  It could have moved much further left even after the 1936 realignment.  Ted Kennedy was considered "main stream" and he was talking about nationalizing the oil companies in the 1970's. 

I think we could very easily see a rightward shift.  I'm actually hoping for a more libertarian shift.

[Person Man]

Can you provide more examples of what you want and what could happen? I just don't see how this country could go further to the right. I mean, I guess a reasonable "liberal" like myself could get deported as well as most of the people on this forum...but seriously...

[J. J.]

Can you provide more examples of what you want and what could happen? I just don't see how this country could go further to the right. I mean, I guess a reasonable "liberal" like myself could get deported as well as most of the people on this forum...but seriously...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare

I would argue that this was far worse than anything we have today.

[Person Man]

I know about the 1919-21 scare, but what kind of policies could we see today? You seem to be stating that the 2010s could be the 1920s, complete with eugenics, prohibition, mass deportations, scandals, and basically proto-fascism.

[J. J.]

I know about the 1919-21 scare, but what kind of policies could we see today? You seem to be stating that the 2010s could be the 1920s, complete with eugenics, prohibition, mass deportations, scandals, and basically proto-fascism.

First, I'm not calling Democrat Woodrow Wilson a fascist.

I think we could see much limited personal rights, a willingness of the federal government to enter into Terri Schiavo type situations, greater police powers.  It isn't fascism, because we would have pluralism, but I wouldn't be too overjoyed about it either.

We could see something along the lines of genetic screening used in employment and criminal classification.

[Person Man]

So, Gattica could become an issue, then?

What about other issues- are we just talking about creating a domestic vice version of the PATRIOT Act and handing over of social services to businesses?

...would this interference be also found in the establishment of Single-Payer Health Care and Higher Taxes?

I know of what you are talking about, but will there be a difference in all issues, some issues, specific issues and how much of a difference will it make? Perhaps you are talking about the fact the relative political balence of power will remain the same, but the Republican party's primary issues will be War, Race and Religion, instead of Taxes and Business.

[J. J.]

So, Gattica could become an issue, then?

What about other issues- are we just talking about creating a domestic vice version of the PATRIOT Act and handing over of social services to businesses?

...would this interference be also found in the establishment of Single-Payer Health Care and Higher Taxes?

I know of what you are talking about, but will there be a difference in all issues, some issues, specific issues and how much of a difference will it make? Perhaps you are talking about the fact the relative political balence of power will remain the same, but the Republican party's primary issues will be War, Race and Religion, instead of Taxes and Business.

Look, you are asking me for a reading of my crystal ball for a trend I expect to be 8-10 years away.  I think that this is one possibility.  I think the odds on it go up on it if McCain loses.

[Albus Dumbledore]

What's the other most likely possibility you see besides this?