Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
A superlative diary.

When it gets to religion, I still get the sense that it's not that simple. We're such a mosaic of a country, with so many variants.

The third world analogy I've read here strikes me as a better/more encompassing one; the US is a young and politically immature country.

Right now, I don't think it can reform itself peacefully, no more than the USSR could. We have three futures ahead of us:

a) more of the same / worse, as long as it can last;
b) a revolution/coup
c) a societal collapse

At best, we'll move from the current Brezhnevian stage to a delusional Gorbachev/perestroika stage of pointless cosmetic so-called reforms (I can picture Hillary in that role) until we finally hit the Yeltsin, take it all down & rebuild stage.

As I wrote here and elsewhere over two years ago, the challenge of the next decade will be for the world to deal with the collapse/transformation of the United States.

by Lupin on Thu May 24th, 2007 at 11:55:37 AM EST
I can't picture Hillary as a reformer, and while Gorby may have been delusional in his believe in the chance of saving the Soviet system by reform, I think Perestroika, but especially Glasnost, were neither cosmetic nor pointless.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 24th, 2007 at 12:10:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Especially considering the alternative.

I can't picture Hillary as a reformer either. Edwards - maybe. Gore, certainly.

In an extremely lateral way, Obama somehow reminds me of Khruschev. (Even though the natural match for Khruschve would be Bush.)

I sense a nasty but hidden ambition there, perfectly camouflaged by an ability to fit into a given political system.

Gore might well turn into Gorby, capable of engineering a relatively soft landing. (Especially considering the alternative.)

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu May 24th, 2007 at 04:43:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree with Lupin that Bush is more like Brezhnev (maybe Clinton was like Khrushchev?)

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 25th, 2007 at 05:53:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'll withdraw "cosmetic" but my definition of "pointlerss" is that ultimately perestroika became irrelevant and was entirely replaced by a new system. I'm not saying it didn't have a role to play in getting there, but it ultimately didn't survive as a separate regime.

If we equal Brish to Brezhnev as the manifestaytion of the old, corrupt kleptocratic and imperial US of A, then cleatly the transitional phases that Russia wernt through were:

  • Andropov: more of the same;
  • Chernenko: more of the same II;
  • Gorbachev: attempt at reform; failed
  • Yeltsin: regime collapse / new regime

I see the current Dems offering a choice between Andropov et Gorbachev, that is to say, something doomed to fail -- though it might be a necessary transitional period.
by Lupin on Fri May 25th, 2007 at 05:20:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hmm, everything that is "ultimately unsuccessful" is "pointless"?

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 25th, 2007 at 05:51:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Perceptive comments, and far from outlandish speculation - (c). The first thing that came to my mind after the collapse of the USSR was 'there goes the counterbalance. The USA will be next'. I was not thinking then about global society as an ecosystem - but it is.

There is a kind of organic democracy evolving at all times, beyond the reach of leaders. 'Leaders' emerge to fulfill the zeitgeist, rather than the other way round. The evolutionary cycles of societies are measured in hundreds of years. It is why we study history.

The envisaged collapse of the USA, if it happens, will not be an unthinkable one-off event. The same thing has been occuring for thousand of years - all over the world.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu May 24th, 2007 at 12:19:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd say there's a (d) or maybe a (b)(ii) which is

Revolution/ "Napsterisation" - essentially a "coup" but bottom up, rather than the classic "top down" putsch:

1/ Capture the TV stations....errrr...they already have....

2/ Seize the White House.....errrr....they did....

......to the barricades!

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Thu May 24th, 2007 at 02:37:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series