That’s the most visible example of our previous experience with this, but it’s far from the only one: Rapidly increasing economic inequalities, coupled with the fight over slavery, led to the election of Lincoln; he of course issued the Emancipation Proclamation, but he also signed into law social programs such as the Homestead Act and a land grant program which resulted in the establishment of many lower-income colleges and universities around the country, including several HBCUs. When the extreme disparities of the Gilded Age reached a tipping point in the late 1800s, the Progressive Era began, bringing things like women’s suffrage, environmental protections, and “muckraking” journalism that rooted out corruption. The attempts at state-level fascism in the midst of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s led to the election of Kennedy and to Johnson’s “Great Society,” which brought with it food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid, and consumer protections, among many other things.
Buchanan led to Lincoln. Hoover led to Roosevelt. Nixon led to Carter. Bush led to Obama. It’s a pendulum of extremes: rapid progressive change is birthed from times of economic inequality, there’s a steady-state era in which progressive policies lead to rapid growth, but then the rich start to get frustrated with regulation and taxation, and corruption begins to increase once more, leading to increasing inequality; the people get mad, control of the government is wrested back, and the cycle begins anew. The pendulum has been swinging since before the Magna Carta even.
Still, you are right about the big question here: whether or not the country will survive the next swing of the pendulum in its current form, or if a different society will have to be birthed from its ashes.
There is not a single competent politician with a history of working for the good of the many in an electable position in the US at the moment.
The closest was Sanders and you saw what the Democrat Establishment did to make sure he was stopped.
Also, I’m sorry but I was in investment banking at the time of the 2008 and after seeing how he unconditionally saved the worst abusers in that industry, I don’t think Obama counts as a good guy, so Bush to Obama wasn’t really a pendular move between extremes: by the time of Obama the choice for anybody other than the well-off and the rich had already been reduced to Greater Evil vs Lesser Evil. Obama was a masterful speechmaker, but when it come to actual policies he was just another neoliberal working for the 1% and once in a while making a show of throwing some crumbs to the riff-raff.
IMHO in terms of working for the many, America hasn’t had anybody anywhere close to Eisenhower as President since JFK.
Expecting that there will be a white knight president elected this time around given the state of Politics in America is pure Hope with almist nothing to back it (the closest is the guy who won the Democrat Primaries for NYC Mayor, and he hasn’t even been elected yet and we’re talking about a major city filled the people far more educated and worldly than the average American, so it’s unlikely that his likely victory will translated to anywhere else in America than maybe one or two other similar cities).
I think the problem this time around is systemic and “bipartisan” (in that both main parties stopped representing most people and just use different styles Propaganda to herd the sheep or just turn people of from voting altogether) and also linked to the natural end of the period where the US was the dominant nation (basically, in the schedule of the Rise and Fall of Empires, the US has already been long enough in the peak dominance period to have reached the Fall stage) and as I meantioned in my last post, if you look around at other nations that were once great, they tend to fall quite a lot and then stagnate for a couple of centuries before they start recovering and none ever gets back to its peak.
This isn’t really an America-specific problem it’s a much broader Human Societies problem, and whilst the details are different the general pattern is the same (corruption, pretty much all of the elites making money of unproductive activities and political connections, people in general having delusions of superiority that vastly exceed the actual present day achievements and so on).
the problem this time around is systemic and “bipartisan” (in that both main parties stopped representing most people and just use different styles Propaganda to herd the sheep or just turn people of from voting altogether)
Definitely. We’re well and truly overdue for the Republicans and Democrats to go the way of the Whigs and the Bull Moose.
if you look around at other nations that were once great, they tend to fall quite a lot and then stagnate for a couple of centuries before they start recovering and none ever gets back to its peak.
I really don’t think we have enough data points to be sure about that. It’s basically just Rome and China. (And Egypt, but iirc we don’t know enough about their internal politics to know why they fell) The US hasn’t reached that kind of peak. But either way, I’m fine with the US never reaching the same heights it once had. If it were to become a regional superpower instead of an international one, but treat its people better, I’d be totally okay with that.
On that last point, Rome, Greece, China, Egypt, Spain & Portugal (from the Discoveries time), several Middle Eastern nations several times (from the Babylonians to the Persians and even the Arabs - back in the 12th Century the most advanced people in the World were Arabs, then known as Moors) and so on (if I remember it correctly the Mayan civilization fell before the Spanish Conquistadores got there, which would make it yet another one that fell to internal problems rather than external factors).
Greece was only ever united for a grand total of 15 years. When Alexander died, they returned to being a loose collection of city-states.
Spain
Totally forgot about that particular empire, I admit; but their peak was in the 1700s and their “fall” was, like, a few years before I was born in the 1970s, so I don’t know if they necessarily support your point about a necessary fall and long recovery as such. In fact, lower-class workers in Spanish colonies in the 1800s were eating better than middle-class citizens in France during that time; and far from taking centuries to return to a functional status, it’s basically a world economy again.
Portugal
Did Portugal ever fall? They divested of their colonies, and the monarchy fell, but those two events happened more or less independently of one another. You’re right that Portugal lasted for a long time; but my understanding of the revolution is that there wasn’t a prolonged period of economic pressure on the citizens of Portugal and that the revolution was mostly ideological.
Babylonians […] Persians
Those have about the same trouble as Egypt in figuring out the internal reasons for its fall, in the case of both the Old- and the Neo-Babylonian Empire as well as the Persian empire and Achaemenid empire.
Arabs
Each caliphate only lasted for a few decades, maybe a century or two. I don’t know enough about them to be able to speak intelligently on their internal politics at the time of their fall.
Mayan civilization
That one definitely lasted for about 4,000 years, true, but like Greece they were an interdependent network of city-states rather than a united empire. The Classic Maya civilization declined precipitously due to unknown reasons, and the post-classical civilization was conquered by the Spanish, so there’s no real evidence there that would point toward anything here.
So yeah, common-ish dynamic; but we can’t really divine any historical information to inform our current situation from any of them, for one reason or another. At least I don’t think we can conclude that long-running or wide-ranging empires are or are not regularly destroyed by internal unrest due to economic disparities.
You’re not wrong, though the US has gone through this sort of thing before in the past. Once the Great Depression wiped away the excesses that came from the post-WWI economic boom, it led directly to Roosevelt’s New Deal; “perhaps the greatest achievement [of which] was to restore faith in American democracy at a time when many people believed that the only choice left was between communism and fascism.”
Sound familiar?
That’s the most visible example of our previous experience with this, but it’s far from the only one: Rapidly increasing economic inequalities, coupled with the fight over slavery, led to the election of Lincoln; he of course issued the Emancipation Proclamation, but he also signed into law social programs such as the Homestead Act and a land grant program which resulted in the establishment of many lower-income colleges and universities around the country, including several HBCUs. When the extreme disparities of the Gilded Age reached a tipping point in the late 1800s, the Progressive Era began, bringing things like women’s suffrage, environmental protections, and “muckraking” journalism that rooted out corruption. The attempts at state-level fascism in the midst of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s led to the election of Kennedy and to Johnson’s “Great Society,” which brought with it food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid, and consumer protections, among many other things.
Buchanan led to Lincoln. Hoover led to Roosevelt. Nixon led to Carter. Bush led to Obama. It’s a pendulum of extremes: rapid progressive change is birthed from times of economic inequality, there’s a steady-state era in which progressive policies lead to rapid growth, but then the rich start to get frustrated with regulation and taxation, and corruption begins to increase once more, leading to increasing inequality; the people get mad, control of the government is wrested back, and the cycle begins anew. The pendulum has been swinging since before the Magna Carta even.
Still, you are right about the big question here: whether or not the country will survive the next swing of the pendulum in its current form, or if a different society will have to be birthed from its ashes.
There is not a single competent politician with a history of working for the good of the many in an electable position in the US at the moment.
The closest was Sanders and you saw what the Democrat Establishment did to make sure he was stopped.
Also, I’m sorry but I was in investment banking at the time of the 2008 and after seeing how he unconditionally saved the worst abusers in that industry, I don’t think Obama counts as a good guy, so Bush to Obama wasn’t really a pendular move between extremes: by the time of Obama the choice for anybody other than the well-off and the rich had already been reduced to Greater Evil vs Lesser Evil. Obama was a masterful speechmaker, but when it come to actual policies he was just another neoliberal working for the 1% and once in a while making a show of throwing some crumbs to the riff-raff.
IMHO in terms of working for the many, America hasn’t had anybody anywhere close to Eisenhower as President since JFK.
Expecting that there will be a white knight president elected this time around given the state of Politics in America is pure Hope with almist nothing to back it (the closest is the guy who won the Democrat Primaries for NYC Mayor, and he hasn’t even been elected yet and we’re talking about a major city filled the people far more educated and worldly than the average American, so it’s unlikely that his likely victory will translated to anywhere else in America than maybe one or two other similar cities).
I think the problem this time around is systemic and “bipartisan” (in that both main parties stopped representing most people and just use different styles Propaganda to herd the sheep or just turn people of from voting altogether) and also linked to the natural end of the period where the US was the dominant nation (basically, in the schedule of the Rise and Fall of Empires, the US has already been long enough in the peak dominance period to have reached the Fall stage) and as I meantioned in my last post, if you look around at other nations that were once great, they tend to fall quite a lot and then stagnate for a couple of centuries before they start recovering and none ever gets back to its peak.
This isn’t really an America-specific problem it’s a much broader Human Societies problem, and whilst the details are different the general pattern is the same (corruption, pretty much all of the elites making money of unproductive activities and political connections, people in general having delusions of superiority that vastly exceed the actual present day achievements and so on).
Definitely. We’re well and truly overdue for the Republicans and Democrats to go the way of the Whigs and the Bull Moose.
I really don’t think we have enough data points to be sure about that. It’s basically just Rome and China. (And Egypt, but iirc we don’t know enough about their internal politics to know why they fell) The US hasn’t reached that kind of peak. But either way, I’m fine with the US never reaching the same heights it once had. If it were to become a regional superpower instead of an international one, but treat its people better, I’d be totally okay with that.
On that last point, Rome, Greece, China, Egypt, Spain & Portugal (from the Discoveries time), several Middle Eastern nations several times (from the Babylonians to the Persians and even the Arabs - back in the 12th Century the most advanced people in the World were Arabs, then known as Moors) and so on (if I remember it correctly the Mayan civilization fell before the Spanish Conquistadores got there, which would make it yet another one that fell to internal problems rather than external factors).
It’s a pretty common dynamic.
Greece was only ever united for a grand total of 15 years. When Alexander died, they returned to being a loose collection of city-states.
Totally forgot about that particular empire, I admit; but their peak was in the 1700s and their “fall” was, like, a few years before I was born in the 1970s, so I don’t know if they necessarily support your point about a necessary fall and long recovery as such. In fact, lower-class workers in Spanish colonies in the 1800s were eating better than middle-class citizens in France during that time; and far from taking centuries to return to a functional status, it’s basically a world economy again.
Did Portugal ever fall? They divested of their colonies, and the monarchy fell, but those two events happened more or less independently of one another. You’re right that Portugal lasted for a long time; but my understanding of the revolution is that there wasn’t a prolonged period of economic pressure on the citizens of Portugal and that the revolution was mostly ideological.
Those have about the same trouble as Egypt in figuring out the internal reasons for its fall, in the case of both the Old- and the Neo-Babylonian Empire as well as the Persian empire and Achaemenid empire.
Each caliphate only lasted for a few decades, maybe a century or two. I don’t know enough about them to be able to speak intelligently on their internal politics at the time of their fall.
That one definitely lasted for about 4,000 years, true, but like Greece they were an interdependent network of city-states rather than a united empire. The Classic Maya civilization declined precipitously due to unknown reasons, and the post-classical civilization was conquered by the Spanish, so there’s no real evidence there that would point toward anything here.
So yeah, common-ish dynamic; but we can’t really divine any historical information to inform our current situation from any of them, for one reason or another. At least I don’t think we can conclude that long-running or wide-ranging empires are or are not regularly destroyed by internal unrest due to economic disparities.