Given that instability is down in the US and young men are neither economically nor sexually disenfranchised, yet inequality is way up, it seems your theory is already falsified.
I'm not touching the sexual part with a 10 foot pole cause it bears no relevance in my opinion either. But I do think that many young men are economically disenfranchised in The States.
Edit: In my comment any mention of 'men' should read "and women". I don't mean just males which is another reason I don't think it is important to address the sexual disenfranchisement part.
A quick google search suggests black men are less sexually disenfranchized than non-blacks.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/07/20/sex-statist...
It also isn't necessarily true that the change in the level of disenfranchisement is due to growth, or change in anything having to do with the economy, so much as due to changes brought on by the civil rights movements. Things can change on a societal level without being impacted by or impacting directly things at an economic level.
The social instability mentioned in the parent is still going on even with these advances. Just saying 'its better than it was' doesn't make it not a thing.
We are. That's a centerpiece to modern intersectional feminism: everyone's hurt to some degree by the structure of society. Men have it better in a lot of situations, but things are still rough.
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.
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.