http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Contemporary_Klan:...
Regarding the debt ceiling, congress cannot threaten or cause default, since the executive branch has the power to prioritize debt payments. In any case, similar things happened in 1995, so no, I wouldn't categorize more of the same as an increase in instability.
The parent didn't say that instability had increased, rather economic polarization had, but by what metric are you implying instability has decreased considering your above examples?
Klenwell said inequality is bad because it causes instability. That doesn't seem to be happening, so his theory seems to be wrong.
And to quote your prior post:
in any case, similar things happened in 1995, so no, I wouldn't categorize more of the same as an increase in instability.
So by your example, things that happened in 1995 are 'more of the same' but when presented with a counter example in the same time span (and even more recently) it shows that things have changed (reduced instability) because it has been a significant period of time? Check. That makes sense.
I'm checking out of this conversation. The contortions in your logic are just a bit too much for me. Carry on.
Who is driving the Tea Party? I would contend economically disenfranchised (though, granted, not particularly young in a lot of cases) voters reacting to increasing economic polarization.
Do Tea Party rank-and-file see their grievances in those terms? Not when they're talking about guns rights and Obamacare perhaps. But get them talking about Wall Street and bank bailouts and it's a different story.