Authors Strauss and Howe call out a ?Crisis Morphology? in the Fourth Turning which includes roughly four phases. The first segment, though they don?t name it precisely, could (and has) been called ?the Catalyst Phase?, ?the Pre-regeneracy?, ?the Degeneracy?, and the ?Fulcrum Period?.

I now present ?Cascade Phase? as both an offering and a question. In this I would define ?cascade? as ?a series of sequential interactions, which once initiated continues to a new equilibrium; each interaction is activated by the preceding one, often with cumulative effect.?

It would seem that in at least the past four 3T/4T transitions, there was an initial spark that set just such a ?series? in motion until a new equilibrium was reached in a Regeneracy.

There is the offering. The question is actually not one question, but two.

One, could you please share your insights into similarities between previous 3T/4T transitions and our current Phony Fourth? If you believe 9/11 was the catalyst, please compare the last two years+ to previous Cascades. If you do not believe 9/11 was the catalyst, please compare our recent period to previous last-stage third turnings. If you are not sure, speculate.

Two, I would invite additional discussion. Is a ?cascade? in the sense above inherently part of a 3T/4T transition? Some on this board have suggested a transition could be relatively smooth and doesn?t require a ?vertiginous spiral? as Strauss and Howe might put it.

I will kick off number two by stating if the last four are any indication, then the answer is ?very likely, yes.?

Black Tuesday to FDR?s Bank Holiday. What an implosion!

John Brown?s Raid at Harper?s Ferry to the Aftermath of First Bull Run. What a ride!

Boston Tea Party to the Declaration of Independence. What a jump!

And the King Philip?s War/Bacon?s Rebellion opening was probably the most intense of them all.

It seems to me a saecular mechanism inherently sets up potential cascade. A third turning is a time when society is most likely to postpone problems. A fourth turning is when a society is most likely to face them head on. The boundary between these two moods is bound to be stark.

Thanks for participating.

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Authors Strauss and Howe call out a ?Crisis Morphology? in the Fourth Turning which includes roughly four phases. The first segment, though they don?t name it precisely, could (and has) been called ?the Catalyst Phase?, ?the Pre-regeneracy?, ?the Degeneracy?, and the ?Fulcrum Period?.

1929/33 notwithstanding -- ordinary folks, I would think, were just hoping day to day things would turn around -- I wonder how many people sat around in May of 1942 wondering whether "Is this really it?"

In 1865, only four year after "it" happened, I'm not too sure it even mattered to anybody anymore, it was so depressing.

In 1776, one year after "it" happened, many men of means had pledged their very lives and fortunes to making "it" happen no matter what.

In 1676, one year after "it" started, "it" was basically all over; save for some window dressing.

Conclusion? "It" ain't happend yet. If "it" had happened you probably wouldn't be asking or, worse, even really caring whether "it" had.

HTH: whether it actually does or not doesn't really matter, when ya git rite down to it. :wink:

Thank you for your input Marc.

This topic only deals peripherally with whether "it" (i.e., the 4T catalyst) has actually already occurred.

My two primary questions were A) to compare the recent mood and events with previous 3T/4T transition periods (esp. if one DOES think 9/11 was the catalyst); and B) discuss whether a "cascade" as defined above is part and parcel of the first phase of a 4T.

Since you definitely believe that 9/11 was NOT the trigger (and I am leaning that way myself) could help us compare today's mood to, say, the late 1920's, late 1850's, and the early 1770's?

I am myself especially struck by how Strauss and Howe point out that after Bleeding Kansas and Dred Scott, society went into an even deeper "brooding" than before.

Recall what S&H said just after the attacks: " Depending on what happens in all these areas, the result of the terrorist attack may be either a Fourth Turning or a shift toward the nastier edge of a Third Turning mood--followed, in short while, by a shift into the first isolationist phase of a Fourth Turning, perhaps keyed more by domestic than global arguments.

This may be what's happening. If so, then the 9/11 attacks would be more like John Brown's raid, which S&H argue, did not catalyze the Crisis, although it became very close. But regardless, it will be remembered as the point at which "everything changed." The question should really be, if it can be confirmed by the time of E2K4 that we ARE in a 4T, the question then would really be whether or not it can be directly traced back to 9/11.

As for a cascading phase, would we know if we are in it? Remember that in real time, several months to even more than a year can pass between political events during the cascade. For the Revolutionary War, only Massachusetts experienced the cascade until April 19, 1775. The other colonies seem to have been experiencing relative peace and comfort. Only after this date did the Crisis spread to the other colonies. With the prior Crisis, there seems to have been a long period between the stock market crash and the next major phase in the cascade which happened in 1931. In 1930, most people assumed that this was just a "recession" that would quickly pass. Most people still went along their daily lives. It was only when people realized that the economy was in continuous free-fall that the Crisis began to cascade.

Since 9/11, have we experienced a cascade? If so, we've only experienced a minor one so far. Remember that in T4T, it was stated that the regeneracy normally begins one to five years after the catalyst, so we are not out of the water yet. Yes, things seem to be going slow, but as Boomers continue their move into their Crisis constellation, it will continue to accelerate. In fact, I think it will become obvious that things are cascading by or before the next election. Let's talk about what happened since 9/11. Looking at the list, the period since 9/11 certainly seems eventful. If there was any event that was left out, please add it.

Terrorist attacks jars the nation. It unites the nation, if only for a moment. Even a radical leftist like myself wanted to go "over there" and spray some bullets. All airplanes are grounded, and Wall Street is closed for a week. After Wall Street opens, there is a massive sell-off that continues until December. Anthrax attacks hit Congress and many other places. Finally, in October, we fight and win against Afghanistan. The USA PATRIOT Act is passed unanimously through Congress. Conflict between Israel and Palenstine makes the news. In December, an event brings India and Pakistan close to nuclear war. Finally, in late spring, the weather seemed to improve. The fear was waning, and the economy looked to be on the way up. Then in June, several corporate accounting scandals again jarred the nation. The mood quickly turned back to grim. The stock market experiences another sell-off that lasts until August. In November of 2002, a national election thrusted Republicans in congressional power. This event causes the Democrat base to attack the party for being too weak, and not having enough balls to do what is needed. This event catalyzes an insurgency lead by Howard Dean, whose campaign is almost entirely driven by the fans. He is able to build large crowds, and inspire civic action in others to drive his campaign. In the opening years of 2003, in both America and the world were massive mobilizations against the Iraqi War, and ones for it. Deflation fears begin to rise. During the second half of 2003, people perceived that a "perfect storm" was forming that was being blamed for the current state of government budgets and for pensions. Then there was the Recall Election. As 2003 drew to a close, people began to worry about a dollar whose fall seemed to be accelerating. And today, the worries are growing as commentaries are now stating that there is no end in sight for the falling of the dollar, that the fall is accelerating, and worries about a crash. The deficit is ballooning, which is causing more and more jitters, especially at a time of budget shortfalls. And Boomers continue to become more and more jittery, which causes me to think that a large economic shock (a leg of the Great Devaluation) is on the doorstep.

So are we currently in a cascade? Not really sure. But whatever it is, it will continue to accelerate into 2004. Most of us are still comfortable. We are largely still fat and happy, even if we are beginning to realize that we are going to have to cut back on our personal comsumptive lifestyles. Perhaps, the Crisis just hasn't hit at home for most of us yet, keeping in mind that for most people in the two previous Crisis eras that I mentioned, the Crisis didn't hit at home for most people until 1775 or 1931. Clearly, if we are in a 4T, the mood is not fully catalyzed. This article that I posted makes it clear that the 3T mood is expiring. It also makes a good case that the "flag-pole sitters" are finally coming down, and are viewed as being "irrevelant, ridiculous, even shameful." Sure, we still have "filth" on television, but people are not paying nearly as much attention as they would've in the 1990s. In fact, last year, television viewership among males aged 18-24 crashed. Negative images in Hip Hop are under heavy attack not only from Boomers, but also from Xers and Millies (both within and outside the culture and industry). The cutting edge of Punk and Hip Hop cultures (and likely others) are transforming into a political movement. Americans are far more publically, politically, and civically engaged than before 9/11. So while we may not be fully in a Crisis mode, we are unmistakingly moving in that direction, and away from 3T mode. Some people on this board spoke to some GIs who stated that things seemed "normal" even in 1931. Also, recall what Kevin Parker stated. T4T has the prior 2T starting with the assassination of JFK, but they use the 1964 year instead of 1963, even though I don't know why. The 2T started with mostly isolated events. For Kevin's community (and this was in Newark, not in some rural village), 1T mood seemed to continue until 1967, which was the year everything seemed to change. Another person who lived somewhere in Texas stated that it didn't hit there until the early 1970s. Today, the same is likely happening. As the cascade accelerates this year, it will likely begin to hit home for more and more people, and by 2005, everyone.

Originally Posted by madscientist

Also, recall what Kevin Parker stated. T4T has the prior 2T starting with the assassination of JFK, but they use the 1964 year instead of 1963, even though I don't know why. The 2T started with mostly isolated events. For Kevin's community (and this was in Newark, not in some rural village), 1T mood seemed to continue until 1967, which was the year everything seemed to change. Another person who lived somewhere in Texas stated that it didn't hit there until the early 1970s. Today, the same is likely happening. As the cascade accelerates this year, it will likely begin to hit home for more and more people, and by 2005, everyone.

I think Strauss and Howe use 1964 as the first year of the Second Turning because the JFK assassination occurred near the tail end of 1963, and because several key events later identified strongly with the Awakening didn't begin until 1964 and '65.

Even as late as July 1967, people in North Jersey were still trying to "Get Back To Normal". My family, for example, vacationed in Montreal (Expo '67) and Cape Cod, Massachusetts. But national and world events wouldn't let us return to the Good Old Days of the High and Pre-Social Moment Awakening...within a year the MLK and RFK murders occurred; soon afterward the Democratic National Convention in Chicago exploded into violence, then Vietnam escalated with the Tet offensive.

But I digress...Robert is correct that if we are in Pre-regeneracy 4T, we wouldn't neccessarily know it until next year, or perhaps even the next.

Originally Posted by oy

In 1676, one year after "it" started, "it" was basically all over; save for some window dressing.

Pretty similar to 2001 I would say. If 911 can be an unraveling conflict so can Bacon's Rebellion.

A good analogy it seems to me is the Revolutionary Crisis. It was the Sons of Liberty more than any other single group that started the Revolutionary War. There were a number of provocations between 1765 and 1773 that did not set off the spark, sort of like the pre-911 terrorist acts against the US. Finally, one of them, the Boston Tea Party provoked a serious response and the crisis was on. This makes the Boston Tea Party analogous to 911.

In response we've increased our military presence in affected countries (sort of like the Quartering Act) and invaded two countries since 911. I would say this more than matches the British response up to 1776. The difference is we are going to win so there isn't going to be much of a post 1776 military conflict. It's pretty much over already for the rebels/terrorists. But the crisis mood will continue as it did after 1781 with the Dutch Revolution and then the French Revolution.

Disclaimer: I am not drawing any sort moral equivalency between the Sons of Liberty and al Qaeda. I am simply making an analogy between a historical conflict that began a Crisis era and which involved assymetrical war involving the hegemon. We are hegemon today so we are analogous to Britain. Al Qaeda is not the hegemon and so by default they play the role of the rebels in this analogy.

Interesting discussion:

I think that there is a problem when we ask the question "are we 4T or not"? and then compare our times to past early 4Ts.

That problem is that when we are looking back at something, it is much easier to delineate a point of departure, a turning point than it is when we are living the events and do not know what will come next.
Several people have alluded to this problem in discussing the beginning of the last 4T and also the last 2T.

I like the "cascade" metaphor for this. In the biological sense, a cascade is a series of chemical events that are begun at one point and once that point has been reached, then the events will continue in motion though the quality of the outcome is not assured. An example is the Male hormone cascade which begins a few weeks after human conception, when the presence of the Y chromosome sets a series of hormonal events in motion. The fetus will go through the events that follow, but since one chemical event affects another, there are other points of departure along the way that could lead to problems with the outcome.Generally, though, once the events start, the fetus will not stay female in morphology, but will become male.

I think that we are somewhere in the cascade and unless 9/11 is eclipsed by some more extreme event, we are likely to look back on that date as the turning point, even though, now, in the messy moment, we are unsure of what will come next.

Dear Sean,

This is a very interesting subject. I've looked at dozens of these
3t/4t transitions now, and I'm not sure that there's any simple way
to typologize them, given that every one seems to be unique in some
important way.

As I've mentioned in other threads, one thing that has to be included
is the financial crisis that seems to go along with most war crises.

It almost makes no sense to talk about the Boston Tea Party without
starting from the English banking failure in 1772. This bank failure
forced many hundreds of colonial businesses to dissolve their
inventories in order to pay off their debts to the English bankers.

Just think about how angry the public has been at the Enron
executives, and you can just imagine how furious the colonists must
have been at the English for forcing so many businesses into
bankruptcy. It's this financial crisis that provided the fuel for
the energy with which the colonists fought in the next few years.

Similarly, the Panic of 1857 was an essential part of the Civil War
crisis. This crisis forced thousands of businesses into bankruptcy.
It affected the industrial North far more than it affected the cotton
plantations of the South, and so it exacerbated the Northern
hostility toward the South and its use of slave labor.

Another phenomenon that seems to occur is what might be called
"ping-pong terrorism." This may be what you're calling the "Cascade
Phase," though I'm not completely certain of that. S&H talk about a
"surprise" launching every crisis, but their examples strike me as
too America-centric. What appears to happen is there are a series of
surprises on both sides that cause the transition from 3t to 4t.

During 3t, as you say, countries postpone problems, desperately trying
to resolve them through containment or compromise. Just as
important, each side expects the other to be willing to use
containment or compromise, and not cross any lines, and it's when the
other side crosses lines that the surprises occur.

What happens in 4t is that the risk-aversive generation of people who
remember the last 4t crisis disappear, and they're replaced by a
generation that's willing to take more risks, to cross more lines.
Each time one side "crosses a line," it comes as an unpleasant and
unexpected shock to the other side. This is ping-pong terrorism (or
perhaps a "cascade"), and it eventually leads to a crisis war.

Today, the 9/11 attack was a surprise to us, obviously. But we also
sprung our own surprises - the Afghan war, the Axis of Evil speech,
the Iraq war -- all of which were complete surprises to the
Islamists. So far the Islamists have been unsuccessful in mounting a
major new terrorist attack on American soil, but that's not for lack
of trying. There's little doubt in my mind that any such attack will
lead to energetic calls for retribution among the American public.

If someone wants to do some research on this subject, there is what I
think is a perfect study example: The Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
The current phase started with the 1989 Intifada, and has continued
through the Oslo peace process and various escalations. In recent
years, the Palestinians' suicide bombers and the Israelis' 12 foot
wall have been shocks to the other side. The Mideast appears to me
to building up to a classic people's uprising, like the French or
Bolshevik revolutions, and it provides a good example for study and
research.

One final point: A 3t/4t transition may be fuzzy because of politics.
Today it seems to me that the Democrats are interpreting the world in
3t terms, because they believe that they'll win in 2004 that way, and
the Republicans interpret events in 4t terms for the same reason.
Thus, a 3t/4t transition is about politics, at least for a while.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by madscientist

Recall what S&H said just after the attacks: " Depending on what happens in all these areas, the result of the terrorist attack may be either a Fourth Turning or a shift toward the nastier edge of a Third Turning mood--followed, in short while, by a shift into the first isolationist phase of a Fourth Turning, perhaps keyed more by domestic than global arguments.

This may be what's happening. If so, then the 9/11 attacks would be more like John Brown's raid, which S&H argue, did not catalyze the Crisis, although it became very close. But regardless, it will be remembered as the point at which "everything changed." The question should really be, if it can be confirmed by the time of E2K4 that we ARE in a 4T, the question then would really be whether or not it can be directly traced back to 9/11.

It is not clear to me from reading T4T whether S&H consider John Brown's Raid or Lincoln's Election as the trigger. Maybe it was a "chinese firecracker" sort of thing. I guess it does not matter all that much.

Originally Posted by madscientist

As for a cascading phase, would we know if we are in it?

Very good point. At some point, I suppose. One of my motivations for this thread was to help give us perspective on that account. I know, as people have pointed out, that comparisons are dangerous as 4T's have unique qualities. But it can't hurt and may turn out to be interesting.

Originally Posted by madscientist

With the prior Crisis, there seems to have been a long period between the stock market crash and the next major phase in the cascade which happened in 1931. In 1930, most people assumed that this was just a "recession" that would quickly pass. Most people still went along their daily lives. It was only when people realized that the economy was in continuous free-fall that the Crisis began to cascade.

Or maybe it was the cascade effect that caused the freefall? A mutual positive feedback loop?

Originally Posted by madscientist

Terrorist attacks jars the nation. It unites the nation, if only for a moment. Even a radical leftist like myself wanted to go "over there" and spray some bullets. All airplanes are grounded, and Wall Street is closed for a week. After Wall Street opens, there is a massive sell-off that continues until December. Anthrax attacks hit Congress and many other places. Finally, in October, we fight and win against Afghanistan. The USA PATRIOT Act is passed unanimously through Congress. Conflict between Israel and Palenstine makes the news. In December, an event brings India and Pakistan close to nuclear war. Finally, in late spring, the weather seemed to improve. The fear was waning, and the economy looked to be on the way up. Then in June, several corporate accounting scandals again jarred the nation. The mood quickly turned back to grim. The stock market experiences another sell-off that lasts until August. In November of 2002, a national election thrusted Republicans in congressional power. This event causes the Democrat base to attack the party for being too weak, and not having enough balls to do what is needed. This event catalyzes an insurgency lead by Howard Dean, whose campaign is almost entirely driven by the fans. He is able to build large crowds, and inspire civic action in others to drive his campaign. In the opening years of 2003, in both America and the world were massive mobilizations against the Iraqi War, and ones for it. Deflation fears begin to rise. During the second half of 2003, people perceived that a "perfect storm" was forming that was being blamed for the current state of government budgets and for pensions. Then there was the Recall Election. As 2003 drew to a close, people began to worry about a dollar whose fall seemed to be accelerating. And today, the worries are growing as commentaries are now stating that there is no end in sight for the falling of the dollar, that the fall is accelerating, and worries about a crash. The deficit is ballooning, which is causing more and more jitters, especially at a time of budget shortfalls. And Boomers continue to become more and more jittery, which causes me to think that a large economic shock (a leg of the Great Devaluation) is on the doorstep.

Pretty good summary. The only thing big thing I can find missing is the DC Sniper. That freaked a lot of people even outside of the DC area. Hell, even I circled my car while getting gas at one point (but 9/11 admittedly made me pretty paranoid).

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

A good analogy it seems to me is the Revolutionary Crisis. It was the Sons of Liberty more than any other single group that started the Revolutionary War.

Changing the application of your comparison for a moment, could the Bush administration be seen as the Sons of Liberty, attempting to foment a 4T mood in the midst of 3T inertia?

Disclaimer: I am not drawing any sort moral equivalency between the Sons of Liberty and al Qaeda. I am simply making an analogy between a historical conflict that began a Crisis era and which involved assymetrical war involving the hegemon. We are hegemon today so we are analogous to Britain. Al Qaeda is not the hegemon and so by default they play the role of the rebels in this analogy.

Understood.

Originally Posted by elilevin

Interesting discussion:

I think that there is a problem when we ask the question "are we 4T or not"? and then compare our times to past early 4Ts.

That problem is that when we are looking back at something, it is much easier to delineate a point of departure, a turning point than it is when we are living the events and do not know what will come next.
Several people have alluded to this problem in discussing the beginning of the last 4T and also the last 2T.

Point well taken. I want to look at these 3T/4T transitions, and especially the early 4T's, for two reasons. One, to see if the cascade metaphor has wings and is applicable. Two, to gain persepective (however tenuous and potentially deceiving) on where we are at now in the saecular cycle. Sure it is full of pitfalls, but it would be very interesting.

Originally Posted by elilevin

I like the "cascade" metaphor for this. In the biological sense, a cascade is a series of chemical events that are begun at one point and once that point has been reached, then the events will continue in motion though the quality of the outcome is not assured. An example is the Male hormone cascade which begins a few weeks after human conception, when the presence of the Y chromosome sets a series of hormonal events in motion. The fetus will go through the events that follow, but since one chemical event affects another, there are other points of departure along the way that could lead to problems with the outcome.Generally, though, once the events start, the fetus will not stay female in morphology, but will become male.

It came to me the other day. Cascade -- as in cascading failure. When I zipped around the Web looking for definitions, bingo. The terms we have been using for the first phase of a crisis just didn't cut the mustard for me.

Thank you very much for the example above.

Originally Posted by elilevin

I think that we are somewhere in the cascade and unless 9/11 is eclipsed by some more extreme event, we are likely to look back on that date as the turning point, even though, now, in the messy moment, we are unsure of what will come next.

Undoubtedly!

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by madscientist

Terrorist attacks jars the nation. It unites the nation, if only for a moment. Even a radical leftist like myself wanted to go "over there" and spray some bullets. All airplanes are grounded, and Wall Street is closed for a week. After Wall Street opens, there is a massive sell-off that continues until December. Anthrax attacks hit Congress and many other places. Finally, in October, we fight and win against Afghanistan. The USA PATRIOT Act is passed unanimously through Congress. Conflict between Israel and Palenstine makes the news. In December, an event brings India and Pakistan close to nuclear war. Finally, in late spring, the weather seemed to improve. The fear was waning, and the economy looked to be on the way up. Then in June, several corporate accounting scandals again jarred the nation. The mood quickly turned back to grim. The stock market experiences another sell-off that lasts until August. In November of 2002, a national election thrusted Republicans in congressional power. This event causes the Democrat base to attack the party for being too weak, and not having enough balls to do what is needed. This event catalyzes an insurgency lead by Howard Dean, whose campaign is almost entirely driven by the fans. He is able to build large crowds, and inspire civic action in others to drive his campaign. In the opening years of 2003, in both America and the world were massive mobilizations against the Iraqi War, and ones for it. Deflation fears begin to rise. During the second half of 2003, people perceived that a "perfect storm" was forming that was being blamed for the current state of government budgets and for pensions. Then there was the Recall Election. As 2003 drew to a close, people began to worry about a dollar whose fall seemed to be accelerating. And today, the worries are growing as commentaries are now stating that there is no end in sight for the falling of the dollar, that the fall is accelerating, and worries about a crash. The deficit is ballooning, which is causing more and more jitters, especially at a time of budget shortfalls. And Boomers continue to become more and more jittery, which causes me to think that a large economic shock (a leg of the Great Devaluation) is on the doorstep.

Pretty good summary.

Shrill, alarmist, defeatist, and utterly immature "summary." Completely lacking in historic perspective, the summary author views every event through the lens of ideological partisanship. There is absolutely no "we" in his summary, as "we" only means the "radical left" of which he subscribes. Given that the "radical left" is left outside the halls of power during the numerous crisis events described, can only mean there is no real "we" in the sense of "regeneracy," those on his side of the ball seek and long for.

Imagine, my liberal friends, how very different the summary would have been written if the quickly glossed over E2002 election had yielded the results of 1930?

A sour grapes summary, in retrospect, is the result of a 2002 election that went not in the "radical leftist" way. 8)

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Sean,

This is a very interesting subject. I've looked at dozens of these
3t/4t transitions now, and I'm not sure that there's any simple way
to typologize them, given that every one seems to be unique in some
important way.

As I've mentioned in other threads, one thing that has to be included
is the financial crisis that seems to go along with most war crises.

It almost makes no sense to talk about the Boston Tea Party without
starting from the English banking failure in 1772. This bank failure
forced many hundreds of colonial businesses to dissolve their
inventories in order to pay off their debts to the English bankers.

Just think about how angry the public has been at the Enron
executives, and you can just imagine how furious the colonists must
have been at the English for forcing so many businesses into
bankruptcy. It's this financial crisis that provided the fuel for
the energy with which the colonists fought in the next few years.

Similarly, the Panic of 1857 was an essential part of the Civil War
crisis. This crisis forced thousands of businesses into bankruptcy.
It affected the industrial North far more than it affected the cotton
plantations of the South, and so it exacerbated the Northern
hostility toward the South and its use of slave labor.

Can you lay out for us how the three economic crashes occuring before the previous 4T's were inherently different from other profound panics/crashes (eg., 1819, 1837, 1907, 1920 etc . . .). I think that would add strength to your assertion. I would love to see that!!!

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Another phenomenon that seems to occur is what might be called "ping-pong terrorism." This may be what you're calling the "Cascade Phase," though I'm not completely certain of that. S&H talk about a "surprise" launching every crisis, but their examples strike me as too America-centric. What appears to happen is there are a series of surprises on both sides that cause the transition from 3t to 4t.

During 3t, as you say, countries postpone problems, desperately trying
to resolve them through containment or compromise. Just as
important, each side expects the other to be willing to use
containment or compromise, and not cross any lines, and it's when the
other side crosses lines that the surprises occur.

What happens in 4t is that the risk-aversive generation of people who
remember the last 4t crisis disappear, and they're replaced by a
generation that's willing to take more risks, to cross more lines.
Each time one side "crosses a line," it comes as an unpleasant and
unexpected shock to the other side. This is ping-pong terrorism (or
perhaps a "cascade"), and it eventually leads to a crisis war.

Today, the 9/11 attack was a surprise to us, obviously. But we also
sprung our own surprises - the Afghan war, the Axis of Evil speech,
the Iraq war -- all of which were complete surprises to the
Islamists. So far the Islamists have been unsuccessful in mounting a
major new terrorist attack on American soil, but that's not for lack
of trying. There's little doubt in my mind that any such attack will
lead to energetic calls for retribution among the American public.

I am having difficulty reconciling your mechanism above with the opening of the last American 4T. How does the Ping-Pong Effect apply to a cascading economic disaster?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

One final point: A 3t/4t transition may be fuzzy because of politics. Today it seems to me that the Democrats are interpreting the world in 3t terms, because they believe that they'll win in 2004 that way, and the Republicans interpret events in 4t terms for the same reason. Thus, a 3t/4t transition is about politics, at least for a while.

Overall I agree. However, Bush's latest move on immigration seems, to my mind, to be a very 3T move, one that could give the Democrats some great 4T-mood type leverage if they bring themselves to use it.

Originally Posted by oy

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by madscientist

Terrorist attacks jars the nation. It unites the nation, if only for a moment. Even a radical leftist like myself wanted to go "over there" and spray some bullets. All airplanes are grounded, and Wall Street is closed for a week. After Wall Street opens, there is a massive sell-off that continues until December. Anthrax attacks hit Congress and many other places. Finally, in October, we fight and win against Afghanistan. The USA PATRIOT Act is passed unanimously through Congress. Conflict between Israel and Palenstine makes the news. In December, an event brings India and Pakistan close to nuclear war. Finally, in late spring, the weather seemed to improve. The fear was waning, and the economy looked to be on the way up. Then in June, several corporate accounting scandals again jarred the nation. The mood quickly turned back to grim. The stock market experiences another sell-off that lasts until August. In November of 2002, a national election thrusted Republicans in congressional power. This event causes the Democrat base to attack the party for being too weak, and not having enough balls to do what is needed. This event catalyzes an insurgency lead by Howard Dean, whose campaign is almost entirely driven by the fans. He is able to build large crowds, and inspire civic action in others to drive his campaign. In the opening years of 2003, in both America and the world were massive mobilizations against the Iraqi War, and ones for it. Deflation fears begin to rise. During the second half of 2003, people perceived that a "perfect storm" was forming that was being blamed for the current state of government budgets and for pensions. Then there was the Recall Election. As 2003 drew to a close, people began to worry about a dollar whose fall seemed to be accelerating. And today, the worries are growing as commentaries are now stating that there is no end in sight for the falling of the dollar, that the fall is accelerating, and worries about a crash. The deficit is ballooning, which is causing more and more jitters, especially at a time of budget shortfalls. And Boomers continue to become more and more jittery, which causes me to think that a large economic shock (a leg of the Great Devaluation) is on the doorstep.

Pretty good summary.

Shrill, alarmist, defeatist, and utterly immature "summary." Completely lacking in historic perspective, the summary author views every event through the lens of ideological partisanship. There is absolutely no "we" in his summary, as "we" only means the "radical left" of which he subscribes. Given that the "radical left" is left outside the halls of power during the numerous crisis events described, can only mean there is no real "we" in the sense of "regeneracy," those on his side of the ball seek and long for.

Imagine, my liberal friends, how very different the summary would have been written if the quickly glossed over E2002 election had yielded the results of 1930?

A sour grapes summary, in retrospect, is the result of a 2002 election that went not in the "radical leftist" way. 8)

I partially disagree Mr. Lamb.

Yes his appraisal was to a degree partisan (eg., "not having enough balls to do what is needed"). But for a leftist, he could have made it a heck of a lot "worse" from your perspective. One can agree with many conservative concepts and principles and still not be thrilled with whatever the Bush Administration's view of the events listed above in Robert's summary would be.

Forgive me if I am presuming incorrectly that that is the kind of summary you would like. In fact, I invite you to rewrite Robert's summary the way you think it should read. That would be truly interesting (no sarcasm intended).

Must the components of the cascade all be interrelated? I'm having trouble seeing September 11th and ("Dred Scott" thread) homosexual marriage as being connected.

~*~*~

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Must the components of the cascade all be interrelated? I'm having trouble seeing September 11th and ("Dred Scott" thread) homosexual marriage as being connected.

~*~*~

Probably the best way to answer this is to quote Strauss and Howe. In reference to certain scenarios they gave as 4T openers they state:

"The core elements of these scenarios (debt, civic decay, global disorder) will matter more than the details, which the catalyst will juxtapose and connect in some unknowable way." Fourth Turning, p. 273

Dear Sean,

Originally Posted by Sean Love

> Can you lay out for us how the three economic crashes occuring
> before the previous 4T's were inherently different from other
> profound panics/crashes (eg., 1819, 1837, 1907, 1920 etc . . .). I
> think that would add strength to your assertion. I would love to
> see that!!!

This is something that requires a lot more research, but here's what
I have so far.

It's not necessary to find that non-crisis period panics/crashes are
inherently different because they're like other kinds of events that
occur all the time -- they have special significance during crisis
periods. Thus, a 1920 recession was too early to initiate a crisis
period but a 1929 crash was not.

However, the crisis-period crashes do seem to be inherently different
in many cases. The 1929, 1857 and 1772 crashes appear to have been
much more serious than other recessions. In each case they followed a
huge credit bubble -- from margin purchases in the 1920s, from "call
loans" in the 1850s, and from a flood of bank currency in the 1760s.

This leads to the following theoretical hypothesis: That a
generational unraveling period also includes a financial unraveling,
including an abuse of credit that creates a large credit bubble.
This follows the generational paradigm since a new credit bubble
occurs at exactly the time when the people who remember the last
credit bubble all retire or die.

When you think about it, this makes sense. An unraveling period is
an "every man for himself" period in other ways, so it shouldn't be
surprising that there's a financial credit component in an unraveling
period as well. There certainly was in the 1760s, the 1850s and the
1920s.

In terms of past historical events, it's not easy to find out the
financial status of nations and regions. It's easy to find out when
wars occurred historically, but whether there was a credit bubble
going on at the time is not readily determinable.

In some cases it's obvious. The French monarchy went bankrupt prior
to the French revolution, for example. The English Civil War
occurred as food prices collapsed in the late 1630s.

There are other examples that seem to produce contrary results. The
main contrary example is the South Sea Bubble which burst in
1721, when the theory indicates that it should have burst in 1700,
prior to the War of Spanish Succession.

Also, France joined the Thirty Years' War in 1635, but the
Tulipomania bubble didn't burst until 1 1/2 years later.

These examples indicate that the theoretical hypothesis has to be
modified in some way. One possibility has to do with merging
timelines. The 30 Years' War and the War of Spanish Succession were
the wars that put Western Europe on a common generational timeline,
and so the individual generational timelines of England, France and
Germany have to be adjusted to account for the merger. Similarly,
it's possible that the large financial credit bubbles were on
a timelime of their own, and they merged with the war crises in the
same period. This is just a hypothesis at this point, but it might
make sense: The financial credit timeline would have been driven by
Spain's gold acquisitions (from the New World) in the 1500s, and it
wasn't until the French Revolution that the credit bubble timeline
merged with the war timeline.

Obviously more work needs to be done in this area, but there's little
doubt in my mind that a financial crisis and war crisis are closely
related. The exact details of how they interrelate in historical
times is a very interesting and valuable research project that has yet
to be done.

> I am having difficulty reconciling your mechanism above with the
> opening of the last American 4T. How does the Ping-Pong Effect
> apply to a cascading economic disaster?

This is often very hard for Americans to understand because we're
only aware of American history, and we assume not only that everything
that happens in the world happens because we Americans caused it, but
also that everyone else in the world sees things exactly the same way
we do.

To understand the pinc-pong effect, you have to look at events from
the point of view of other countries. This information is very
difficult to get from standard history books. Even today, Americans
seldom understand or sympathize with foreign points of view. I
always try to spend some time every day reading something in the
foreign press to get a feeling of where things are going overseas.

To respond to your question about the 1930s, I've outlined the
ping-pong steps in other threads and I'll repeat them here. When the
stock market crash occurred in 1929, it affected the rest of world as
much as it affected us. But then we went one step farther and
implemented the Smoot-Hawley tariff act in 1930 (ping), which was
devastating to both Germany and Japan. In the case of Japan, it's
entire silk industry was devastated without exports to America. In
1931, Japan invaded Manchuria (pong). In retaliation, America and
the League of Nations condemned Japan (ping) and imposed an oil
embargo on Japan (ping ping), which was also financially devastating
the Japan. Japan then invaded China (pong), and later bombed Pearl
Harbor (pong pong).

This is the kind of thing that Americans never see. When you say
that the 1930s was "a cascading economic disaster," you're taking a
totally American point of view. In fact, the 1930s were seen very
differently in Germany and Japan, and America was seen increasingly
hostile and warlike.

> However, Bush's latest move on immigration seems, to my mind, to
> be a very 3T move, one that could give the Democrats some great
> 4T-mood type leverage if they bring themselves to use it.

Once again there's a big historical parallel. In 1930 the American
public blamed the stock market crash on foreigners, and forced
Washington to pass the Smoot-Hawley law, even though Hoover and many
Congressmen and also many economists at the time said it was bad law.

Today we're seeing the same sort of thing, with the current financial
problems being blamed on India and China. Bush, like Hoover, is
trying to fend off these calls for financial retribution. In that
sense, Bush's immigration proposal can be seen as having a 4t
interpretation.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by elilevin

Interesting discussion:

I think that there is a problem when we ask the question "are we 4T or not"? and then compare our times to past early 4Ts.

That problem is that when we are looking back at something, it is much easier to delineate a point of departure, a turning point than it is when we are living the events and do not know what will come next.
Several people have alluded to this problem in discussing the beginning of the last 4T and also the last 2T.

This is an important point. A turning change is essentially a change in trend. An easy to visualize analogy are bull (rising) and bear (falling)trends in financial markets. For example, on September 21, 2001 the major stock indices set a new closing low in the wake of 911, after which they began to rise. Was September 21, 2001 the end of the bear market? Had a new bull market begun? In March of 2002, it sure looked like it. Turns out that it wasn't.

Bull-bear market trends typically are ~4 years long. So here we were about 12% of the way through this cycle and we still did't really know whether the trend had changed. (This is the equivalent of 2.5 years after a putative trigger and not knowing whether the 4T has begun).

We got a new bottom on October 9, 2002. I could no more tell whether October 9, 2002 was the bottom as I could September 21, 2001. So I still had cash (about half as much as I had in March 2002 because I had bought in the preceding decline, but I still had some against the possibility it would go lower still (i.e. the old trend was still in place). In March 2003 it sure looked like it was going lower.

It didn't and today we can say with fair confidence that a new bull market did begin on October 9, 2002. We are roughly a third through the cycle, equivalent of nearly 7 years into a 20 year turning, an now we can be pretty sure. The point I am making is a turning change, like a market bottom (or top) is defined by what happens afterward. We cannot "see" a Crisis coming in real time just as we cannot "see" a market top or bottom in real time. In other words a significant trend change is simply a minor change that is given meaning by later events.

Is the ping pong effect the same as Butler's spiral of violence?

~*~*~

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Is the ping pong effect the same as Butler's spiral of violence?

I would say yes. After the OKC bombing, both sides were revolted by the notion of bombing day care centers. About that time, the rules of engagement for the FBI and BATF were rewritten to avoid repeats of Ruby Ridge and Waco. The conservative militias backed away from threats of violence. Thus, during that phase of the unraveling, and with regard to the religious and Bill of Rights issues, the 'spiral of violence' broke.

It seems that as one gets closer to crisis, the response to violence would be revenge rather than revulsion. The issues are hotter, cannot be ignored, delayed, or compromised away. The escalating incidents in Boston prior to the Revolution, or in Bleeding Kansas prior to the Civil War, got out of hand. It seems worth while to monitor the frequency and intensity of the violent incidents. A crisis does not seem to go into full scale unrestrained conflict without considerable foreplay.

I am fascinated by this thread's looking at financial collapses just prior to the violence escalating. I have been saying similar things about the current situation. I see economics as an underlying cause for many of the ethnic and religious tensions. The tendency towards Amy Chua's "market dominant minorities" (ethnic minorities wielding an excess of economic clout, leaving disenfranchised majorities) drives many global hot spots. I don't follow economic history that closely, and had been unaware of how the economic and violent bad times coincide.

Unaware, but it doesn't seem surprising. It feels right. Keep it coming. :?

I'd make a mild plea for 'spiral of violence' as a meaningful term, as it is a moderately common phrase, encountered elsewhere. Still, this phase does involve economic as well as violent elements, so a more generic phrase, such as cascade, involving both elements, seems good too.

I would also watch for moral / religious tie ins. While I believe in economic underlying causes, with Marx discredited, few politicians, pundits or clerics will stand up and cry out to fight for economic advantage. Yes, the economic difficulties fuel the fire, and people are fighting for a better future, but expect people to talk about, rights, freedom, tradition, God's will, or some other high and noble sounding cause. The death, suffering and killing won't get really bad until everyone is fighting for pure noble reasons. :cry:

Just as a broad pattern, I would expect the spiral of violence to be spread out over multiple phases. The Islamists were blowing up barracks, the Cole, and even a prior attempt at the World Trade Center, long before September 11, 2001. There might be three phases coinciding with the spiral, then the crisis proper. 1) Violence is small, far away, we can ignore it. Violence has minimal impact on policy. 2) The violence is important, but no one is sure what should be done, or if anything can be done. Many strive to ignore underlying causes, while isolationists and other factions advocate doing nothing. 3) We gotta do something. What's the plan? (Regeneracy proper.) 4) After a Fort Sumpter, Lexington Green or Pearl Harbor, OK, that does it, maximum effort.

The borders between 2 and 3 might be very soft and fuzzy, or drawn arbitrarily much later with benefit of hindsight. In fact, all the borders might be fuzzy. Those who believe in Bush 43's War on Terror might convince themselves we are already acting decisively, while followers of S&H cycle theory are contributing to the 'nothing is going on' thread. It is a question of perception. How serious is the threat, and what is the necessary and proper response? I'd still put us in Phase 2, but those who think Bush 43 has been acting decisively and sufficiently might disagree.

To me, the Catalyst Phase or Cascade Phase might properly include both 2 and 3, while a Pre-Regeneracy might be phase 2 only, and Degeneracy sounds a lot like the late Unraveling, and might be phase 1.

There might also be an "On to Richmond" phase, where one or both factions think victory through violence will come easy, and thus do not advocate large changes addressing underlying causes. Examples might include the Revolution between the 18th of April in 75, and July 4th 76, or the US Civil War prior to the Emancipation Proclamation. Thus, the Regeneracy does not generate the whole picture. Notions of what can, must and should be done shift with the tides of battle. The Gray Champions often act out of desperation, out of forced hands, responding to forces beyond their control.

See Kevin Phillips The Cousins' Wars for accounts of how political objectives shifted with military triumphs and setbacks during the English Civil War, US Revolution and US Civil War. Phillips also notes that the radical progressives, in their final moments of military triumph at war's end, would take their agenda too far, beyond what the majority will tolerate. Such excess can result in a conservative counter movement during the high, where the monarchy is restored, or the federals back away from the XIVth Amendment, allowing Jim Crow racism in the South.

The point being, that while the Regeneracy does mark a period where issues are examined, resolve is built up, and commitments are made, the Regeneracy does not provide a Final Plan or All The Answers. Not even total victory in all out war resolves the big issues.

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by oy

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by madscientist

Terrorist attacks jars the nation. It unites the nation, if only for a moment...

Pretty good summary.

Imagine, my liberal friends, how very different the summary would have been written if the quickly glossed over E2002 election had yielded the results of 1930?

Forgive me if I am presuming incorrectly that that is the kind of summary you would like. In fact, I invite you to rewrite Robert's summary the way you think it should read. That would be truly interesting (no sarcasm intended).

Surely you've read enough of what I have written, already, to imagine how I wouldv'e written this "summary"? :wink:

Originally Posted by oy

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by oy

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by madscientist

Terrorist attacks jars the nation. It unites the nation, if only for a moment...

Pretty good summary.

Imagine, my liberal friends, how very different the summary would have been written if the quickly glossed over E2002 election had yielded the results of 1930?

Forgive me if I am presuming incorrectly that that is the kind of summary you would like. In fact, I invite you to rewrite Robert's summary the way you think it should read. That would be truly interesting (no sarcasm intended).

Surely you've read enough of what I have written, already, to imagine how I wouldv'e written this "summary"? :wink:

Ah, come on. Indulge me.

Dear Bob,

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

> It seems that as one gets closer to crisis, the response to
> violence would be revenge rather than revulsion. The issues are
> hotter, cannot be ignored, delayed, or compromised away. The
> escalating incidents in Boston prior to the Revolution, or in
> Bleeding Kansas prior to the Civil War, got out of hand. It seems
> worth while to monitor the frequency and intensity of the violent
> incidents. A crisis does not seem to go into full scale
> unrestrained conflict without considerable foreplay.

This is exactly the kind of thing that I'm watching, especially in
the Mideast. I believe that you can watch these events and make some
reasonable predictions about when a full scale crisis war is likely to
occur. And the desire for revenge has been palpable since 9/11.

> I see economics as an underlying cause for many of the ethnic and
> religious tensions. The tendency towards Amy Chua's "market
> dominant minorities" (ethnic minorities wielding an excess of
> economic clout, leaving disenfranchised majorities) drives many
> global hot spots.

I agree that economics is the underlying cause for many things. For
example, a lot of people think that the Civil War started because
Lincoln wanted to free the slaves. Actually, Lincoln had no
intention of freeing the slaves, and only did so under political
pressure two years after the Civil War began. I haven't read Amy
Chua's book, but I've read some reviews, and I have some
reservations about her primary thesis: That globalization, in
essense, causes wars. This is essentially a political conclusion
since, in fact, you can't stop globalization any more than you can
stop winter, and if you say that globalization causes wars then
you're just trying to find a politician to blame.

> I'd make a mild plea for 'spiral of violence' as a meaningful
> term, as it is a moderately common phrase, encountered elsewhere.
> Still, this phase does involve economic as well as violent
> elements, so a more generic phrase, such as cascade, involving
> both elements, seems good too.

I like the "spiral of violence" term, but I also like "ping pong
terrorism" because it evokes the image of each side's actions
countering the other's.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I haven't read Amy Chua's book, but I've read some reviews, and I have some reservations about her primary thesis: That globalization, in essense, causes wars. This is essentially a political conclusion
since, in fact, you can't stop globalization any more than you can
stop winter, and if you say that globalization causes wars then
you're just trying to find a politician to blame.

That is not what Amy Chua is saying. She decidely DID NOT say that globalization in and of itself causes wars. That's like saying winter causes fatal hypothermia. Well, yes, it does, but only under certain circumstances, like when you go outside without your coat on or when you go swimming in Lake Erie in January without a wetsuit.

What she is saying is that by pushing both de facto laizze-faire capitalism and raw democracy at the same time on second and third world countries we are severely aggravating pre-existing socio-economic problems -- specifically the one regarding market-dominate minorities.

Furthermore she points out that this is a development that no first world country ever went through, and makes a very good case for it.

She is very much for globalization in terms of both expanded markets and the championing of democracy worldwide, but she suggests serious modifications to the way we currently go about pursuing this.

Its a thoughtful read.

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by oy

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by oy

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by madscientist

Terrorist attacks jars the nation. It unites the nation, if only for a moment...

Pretty good summary.

Imagine, my liberal friends, how very different the summary would have been written if the quickly glossed over E2002 election had yielded the results of 1930?

Forgive me if I am presuming incorrectly that that is the kind of summary you would like. In fact, I invite you to rewrite Robert's summary the way you think it should read. That would be truly interesting (no sarcasm intended).

Surely you've read enough of what I have written, already, to imagine how I would've written this "summary"? :wink:

Ah, come on. Indulge me.

Ok, here goes...

• Terrorist attacks jars the nation. It unites the nation, if only for a moment... so now it's politics as usual, while the GOP break the midterm election jinx for first time in sixty years.
  
  Marc Lamb was right.

That's it, that's my summary of the last three years. The Left, radical or otherwise, who virtually snored all through the nineties -- and through all of Clinton's military adventures overseas -- now go apoplectic everytime Bush sneezes. What else is new, eh? :wink: