Originally Posted by radind

No Lincoln on stage.
The GOP can be the Wigs.
Still need a new viable third party. ( The Peoples Party?)

That about wraps a ribbon around it. There is no third party to bring into the process. Yes there are smaller ideological parties, but none of them has a following much beyond the true believers. The two largest are the Libertarians, which typically poll in the high single digits, and the Greens, which can poll higher in Ann Arbor, Berkley or Madison Wisconsin, but not much elsewhere. Parties like Congress or Liberty are more like clubs than parties. I'm not familiar with an existing People's Party, but I'm open to one opening for business.

Then agin, perhaps the Masons will try politics again. It worked so well for them last time. Just ask Jacques de Molay.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

That about wraps a ribbon around it. There is no third party to bring into the process. Yes there are smaller ideological parties, but none of them has a following much beyond the true believers. The two largest are the Libertarians, which typically poll in the high single digits, and the Greens, which can poll higher in Ann Arbor, Berkley or Madison Wisconsin, but not much elsewhere. Parties like Congress or Liberty are more like clubs than parties. I'm not familiar with an existing People's Party, but I'm open to one opening for business.

Then agin, perhaps the Masons will try politics again. It worked so well for them last time. Just ask Jacques de Molay.

I don't see the Masons coming back. Don't know of a current third party either-just threw out the 'Peoples Party' as a placeholder.

Originally Posted by radind

I don't see the Masons coming back. Don't know of a current third party either-just threw out the 'Peoples Party' as a placeholder.

I was being factitious about the Masons, but the People's Parties of the past have been interesting if somewhat less than successful. I might vote for them. The big problem is the style we use to select candidates: first-past-the-post. It makes third parties nearly impossible.

As things evolve, assuming the Republicans don't pull their heads out of their cloacas, there are two potentially viable third parties that might evolve into main parties. These are the Libertarians and the Greens. Neither of them is main-party material at present, but the prospect of actually winning elections might change them.

The U.S. electoral system pushes everything towards a two-party system, because nothing else makes sense in a winner-take-all by-district electoral process. Much as we might heap scorn on the "lesser of two evils" idea, it actually is good political sense, given the reality that one of the two front-runners WILL win the election, and everyone else will lose. Voting for the lesser of two evils helps prevent the greater evil from winning. Voting your actual preference amounts to a vote for whichever main candidate you dislike more. (Unless your main preference is one of the front-runners.)

Third parties, having no chance to win, therefore have nothing to lose by going for ideological purity. As the Republicans circle the drain, that will change, and the Greens and/or Libertarians will see reward in compromising ideological purity for electability. One of the two will move into main-party status. If the Greens do it, progressive Democrats will become Greens, while moderate Republicans will become Democrats. (The Wacko Birds of the GOP will simply disappear.) If the Libertarians do it, conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans will become Libertarians, and again the Wacko Birds will disappear. Either way, we end up with a progressive party (called either Greens or Democrats) and a conservative but sane party (called either Democrats or Libertarians). If the GOP wises up and doesn't die, the same outcome, called the Democrats and Republicans.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Part of the reason that there cannot be a secession this time, regardless of how much both sides may desire it, is the dispersal of the Red faction. Most are located in exurban and rural areas - spread far and wide. Then there are the old industrial and agricultural cities. San Francisco may be Azure Blue, but what about Bakersfield or even Fresno?

Fresno - purple.

Bakersfield - red.

And interestingly, both areas have lots of Latinos and blacks.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The country just became ungovernable, and would have remained that way if the South hadn't seceded. This time, they believe they can win, so the Rural Right (the current equivalent) will be sticking around, and gumming up the works.

I'm going to challenge that "would have remained that way if the South hadn't seceded." Then as now, the writing was on the wall, and that's WHY the South seceded. The balance in Congress was unstable because of the addition of new states from the Western territories. An anti-slavery majority in Congress was coming, and eventually enough anti-slavery states to pass a Constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. Even before that could be done, it would mean the end of the Fugitive Slave Act as it existed pre-war, and the passage of measures to make slavery unprofitable, and quite likely the outlawing of slavery in Virginia, Maryland, and Kentucky. So the slave interests had reason to secede. If that hadn't happened, very likely Southern Congresscritters would have made Lincoln's terms in office frustrating, but that situation wouldn't have lasted, as new states came into being, and the balance in Congress tilted to the Republicans.

Today, we have a parallel dynamic, not because new states are being added but because of changing demographics. As the South becomes more urban, it ceases to be Southern in the Neo-Confederate sense. Virginia appears to be going blue already. Florida isn't far behind. North Carolina? Texas? The Deep South will probably hold out longer, but that won't matter.

Do they think they can win? Perhaps. They're wrong, if so. I suspect it's more that, given the precedent of the Civil War, and also the move away from the state militia system of national defense precisely to prevent a recurrence, that option is closed. They're doing the only thing that remains open to them. It won't work much longer.

I don't see a lot of progress here either.

You shouldn't expect to until the American Civil Conflict is resolved, except abroad of course, and outside the federal government. There's a lot being done at the state level, in foreign countries, and by private companies and nonprofits, including developing the technology necessary to implement a solution. I also wouldn't rule out the possibility of engineered mitigation of climate change (i.e., deliberate global cooling and/or engineered carbon sequestration), which is viewed as too risky today, but may become more attractive in a few years.

We sometimes forget that the federal government in a Crisis era is as often follower as leader. Even in the last Crisis, with a decidedly non-paralyzed federal government, a lot of the progress was led by state governments (especially California and Louisiana) and by movements, including the labor movement and socialist movements. In the current Crisis, at least this phase of it, that's even more true.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Fresno - purple.

Bakersfield - red.

And interestingly, both areas have lots of Latinos and blacks.

who don't vote....

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Part of the reason that there cannot be a secession this time, regardless of how much both sides may desire it, is the dispersal of the Red faction. Most are located in exurban and rural areas - spread far and wide. Then there are the old industrial and agricultural cities. San Francisco may be Azure Blue, but what about Bakersfield or even Fresno?

Unless people accept that the majority in the state decides which group to go with. It could happen if, as in 2012, the gap between red and blue election returns in states continues to widen.

As for 3rd parties, Brian's scenario is correct, unless it dawns on people that the USA has an outdated system. As far as I remember, virtually every other democracy in the world has a parliamentary system in which a governing coalition is created by an alliance of two or more parties, and many parties are represented in parliament. People developing democracy since the 19th century have followed the British and not the American model-- even in Iraq where the USA itself set it up. Our elected-king system, the imperial presidency, has been knocked for years. It could be done away with in this 4T if change really gets going and a president abuses power.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Assuming any of this is correct, I don't see fragmentation as a good outcome. Using Brian's term, the neo-Confederate option is much easier to maintain than it is to overturn. Saying no is always the default position for any government like ours that is intentionally fragmented, as we've been shown these last several years. Since this meets the need of the oligarchs quite well, they'll fund more obstruction and justify it as FREEDOM. That's still a highly popular meme.

I see little chance that anything short of another economic collapse will move us beyond that framework, so this may be the 1T precursor. The only alternatives are a dramatic electoral shift, either right or left, or a revolution. Does anyone see either of those happening? Barring economic collapse, I don't.

A dramatic electoral shift left is possible, IF millennials learn to vote in midterms. Demographic shifts could favor Democrats. A civil war and secession is possible, if not likely, if the reactionary side stays powerful enough to resist the changes.

Since the oligarchs like this fragmented, deadlocked, dysfunctional government, it will hang around for a few more years. But dysfunction cannot work forever, even for many of the oligarchs. Inequality and global warming as well as revulsion at the current moneyed electoral system will drive change. So will fears that the USA is declining and no longer so competitive in the world market. There will be another recession in this 4T, if not another near-total collapse. And, if we DO get a new Lincoln, perhaps (s)he will point out that "you can't fool all the people all of the time" with slogans of "freedom." Call me an optimist

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

who don't vote....

Actually, they do. How do you think Prop 8 was able to pass?

Personally I think barring a civil war (which I concede is a possibility) the two parties are too entrenched. They'll change from within to fit the national mood, but unlikely with current situation for one to completely 'dissolve' or become '3rd party'.

Rather any 3rd party will be absorbed into one of the two major parties.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Actually, they do. How do you think Prop 8 was able to pass?

But if they voted, Bakersfield might not be quite as red as it is.

But, there were enough hispanics and blacks who vote statewide to join with white conservatives to Pass Prop 8, though it wouldn't pass today. And it was in 2008, a presidential election year-- times when hispanics and younger folks actually tend to turn out these days. In Kern County, the % was 58 to 40 in favor of McCain. Fresno, 50-48 Obama.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...lifornia,_2008

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I'm going to challenge that "would have remained that way if the South hadn't seceded." Then as now, the writing was on the wall, and that's WHY the South seceded. The balance in Congress was unstable because of the addition of new states from the Western territories. An anti-slavery majority in Congress was coming, and eventually enough anti-slavery states to pass a Constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. Even before that could be done, it would mean the end of the Fugitive Slave Act as it existed pre-war, and the passage of measures to make slavery unprofitable, and quite likely the outlawing of slavery in Virginia, Maryland, and Kentucky. So the slave interests had reason to secede. If that hadn't happened, very likely Southern Congresscritters would have made Lincoln's terms in office frustrating, but that situation wouldn't have lasted, as new states came into being, and the balance in Congress tilted to the Republicans.

Today, we have a parallel dynamic, not because new states are being added but because of changing demographics. As the South becomes more urban, it ceases to be Southern in the Neo-Confederate sense. Virginia appears to be going blue already. Florida isn't far behind. North Carolina? Texas? The Deep South will probably hold out longer, but that won't matter.

Do they think they can win? Perhaps. They're wrong, if so. I suspect it's more that, given the precedent of the Civil War, and also the move away from the state militia system of national defense precisely to prevent a recurrence, that option is closed. They're doing the only thing that remains open to them. It won't work much longer.

I have no doubt that this will be resolved in the future, but "the future" is a pretty long time. The real issue is timing. Will this be resolved in this 4T? Since 4Ts tend to run short in comparison to the other turnings, a reasonable guess for the emerging 1T would be 2025-6. Obstruction, being a built-in element of our Constitutional system, is unlikely to break before the 2022 election - the first following the next reapportionment. If the President is well disposed to dramatic change and Congressional elections swing solidly toward progress, 4 years may be enough. If not, then Band-Aid actions should be expected, and a "new normal" sets in with nothing really resolved. AGW isn't going away, so the most progressive activity in the 1T is posturing and handwringing about how to fix or at least ameliorate the now-obvious problems. Economic justice and other issues simmer until the 2T restarts the discussion in earnest ... much like the Progressives and Union activists did in their 2T.

I give the odds of a muddled 4T at >50%, with the percentage rising as nothing gets going.

Originally Posted by Brian ...

You shouldn't expect to until the American Civil Conflict is resolved, except abroad of course, and outside the federal government. There's a lot being done at the state level, in foreign countries, and by private companies and nonprofits, including developing the technology necessary to implement a solution. I also wouldn't rule out the possibility of engineered mitigation of climate change (i.e., deliberate global cooling and/or engineered carbon sequestration), which is viewed as too risky today, but may become more attractive in a few years.

We sometimes forget that the federal government in a Crisis era is as often follower as leader. Even in the last Crisis, with a decidedly non-paralyzed federal government, a lot of the progress was led by state governments (especially California and Louisiana) and by movements, including the labor movement and socialist movements. In the current Crisis, at least this phase of it, that's even more true.

You make my point here. The states as engines of social change is just not working anymore. Gerrymandering on steroids has made them more sclerotic than the Federal government, which at least benefits a little from the sclerotic diversity of the states.

Other than California, I don't see any states ready to step up their game. A lot are moving in the right direction, but built-in stasis slows everything at the state level just as it does at the Federal. How many decades did California struggle to overcome stasis there? Even then, the political divide is rural/urban, and most of the urban states are on the coasts. There are a lot of votes in Congress from less well disposed states and districts. Assume obstruction is the game plan, since the system favors it.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Personally I think barring a civil war (which I concede is a possibility) the two parties are too entrenched. They'll change from within to fit the national mood, but unlikely with current situation for one to completely 'dissolve' or become '3rd party'.

Rather any 3rd party will be absorbed into one of the two major parties.

That's been the history of the parties over the last century at least. Third parties make great engines for idea creation, but have no way to deliver on those ideas. They can rattle the party most closely associated with them though. Even then, it doesn't always work. Ross Perot's ideas were adopted by no one. Both major parties were pro-NAFTA to the bone.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I have no doubt that this will be resolved in the future, but "the future" is a pretty long time. The real issue is timing. Will this be resolved in this 4T? Since 4Ts tend to run short in comparison to the other turnings, a reasonable guess for the emerging 1T would be 2025-6.

We shouldn't assume that that's true. There's only one good sample of a shortened 4T without controversial dating, and that's the Great Depression and World War II. When the Civil War Crisis ended (and began) is a matter of much dispute, and other Crisis eras tended to last longer than the last one. E.g. the Revolution Crisis, which began in 1773 (at latest) and ended in 1796 (arguably), when President Washington made the decision to voluntarily retire after two terms.

It's extremely likely that the current Crisis will not include a major war between great powers. Without that, there won't be the same incentive to bring it to an early end.

You make my point here. The states as engines of social change is just not working anymore. Gerrymandering on steroids has made them more sclerotic than the Federal government, which at least benefits a little from the sclerotic diversity of the states.

You present a theory. Now, check that theory against facts coming from the last election. Many states enacted measures to raise the minimum wage (not affected by gerrymandering btw). Others enacted legalization of marijuana and of same-sex marriage.

Other than California, I don't see any states ready to step up their game.

You need to stop looking at the state legislature and calling that "the state." It's not. All of the actions I mentioned above bypassed the state legislature altogether. What I see happening is an emerging element of direct democracy facilitated by the Internet, and that's a truly radical change.

A lot are moving in the right direction, but built-in stasis slows everything at the state level just as it does at the Federal. How many decades did California struggle to overcome stasis there? Even then, the political divide is rural/urban, and most of the urban states are on the coasts. There are a lot of votes in Congress from less well disposed states and districts. Assume obstruction is the game plan, since the system favors it.

For the moment -- if we restrict our view to the federal government -- yes, it does. But we should not do that.

Regarding third parties, there's no written-in-stone guarantee that the GOP will go the way of the Whigs. All we can say is that either they will change, returning to their party traditions established pre-Depression, or else they will go the way of the Whigs. Either of those developments will leave the Neo-Confederates without effective representation. The Democrats are unlikely in the extreme to return to their roots. If the Confederates aren't represented by either of the two parties, they will disappear from the national political stage. That may or may not be so of the GOP as well. It doesn't really matter. We can live with a Republican Party that's either what it used to be, or gone.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I have no doubt that this will be resolved in the future, but "the future" is a pretty long time. The real issue is timing. Will this be resolved in this 4T? Since 4Ts tend to run short in comparison to the other turnings, a reasonable guess for the emerging 1T would be 2025-6. Obstruction, being a built-in element of our Constitutional system, is unlikely to break before the 2022 election - the first following the next reapportionment. If the President is well disposed to dramatic change and Congressional elections swing solidly toward progress, 4 years may be enough. If not, then Band-Aid actions should be expected, and a "new normal" sets in with nothing really resolved. AGW isn't going away, so the most progressive activity in the 1T is posturing and handwringing about how to fix or at least ameliorate the now-obvious problems. Economic justice and other issues simmer until the 2T restarts the discussion in earnest ... much like the Progressives and Union activists did in their 2T.

I give the odds of a muddled 4T at >50%, with the percentage rising as nothing gets going.

Things are muddled under Neptune in Pisces. We are 1850s redux.

Bet on an end to the 4T, regardless of what we think of it, in 2028 or 2029. Yes, 2022 is a good bet for things to get moving past obstructions. That's 7 years for things to progress rapidly.

You make my point here. The states as engines of social change is just not working anymore. Gerrymandering on steroids has made them more sclerotic than the Federal government, which at least benefits a little from the sclerotic diversity of the states.

I keep asking, why don't the people get rid of gerrymandering?

Other than California, I don't see any states ready to step up their game. A lot are moving in the right direction, but built-in stasis slows everything at the state level just as it does at the Federal. How many decades did California struggle to overcome stasis there? Even then, the political divide is rural/urban, and most of the urban states are on the coasts. There are a lot of votes in Congress from less well disposed states and districts. Assume obstruction is the game plan, since the system favors it.

CA got rid of gerrymandering. Why is this so hard for other states?

A red/blue divide, if the people decide the union can no longer work, can yield 2 almost-contiguous states, if the blue states join with Canada. Now, there's an idea! We could even let the red states have New Mexico.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Things are muddled under Neptune in Pisces. We are 1850s redux.

No! Jupiter is triuned with the Magellanic Clouds.




No wonder things are cloudy. Just look.

Bet on an end to the 4T, regardless of what we think of it, in 2028 or 2029. Yes, 2022 is a good bet for things to get moving past obstructions. That's 7 years for things to progress rapidly.

Yes, that's when Jupiter is triuned with black hole X. Stuff spins real fast around black holes.


I keep asking, why don't the people get rid of gerrymandering?

CA got rid of gerrymandering. Why is this so hard for other states?

Other states are gerrymandered. Gerrymandering begets more gerrymandering.

[/quote]
A red/blue divide, if the people decide the union can no longer work, can yield 2 almost-contiguous states, if the blue states join with Canada. Now, there's an idea! We could even let the red states have New Mexico.[/QUOTE]

What about Colorado? That poor state is surround by , excepting New Mexico with wahoos.

Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche

If the 4T started in 2001, therefore the 3T would only have lasted 17 years, which is too short.

Why is 17 years too short? Turnings are organic periods of mentality, not tics on a clock.

Perhaps the 3T started earlyer than 1984? In 1981 for example? But therefore we would have a 2T of only 17 years and again, it's too short.

1980 is a much better date than 1984. Carter was elected as a 2T president in 1976, self-marketed as a new beginning, a clean up of the 2T, and the same time an honest realization of its values (human rights etc). He soon ran into problems he couldn't handle though, much due to lingering 2T mentalities in the late 70's. Did you know the pious baptist Carter was a tax austerity and balanced budget proponent as well? He just weren't able to exercise it. The Iranian revolution/hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan then provided the nadir of a floundering America. Reagan on his way to the White House and Thatcher already on Number 10 Downing Street meant a sea change in worldview and a complete realignment in Turning mentality. The late 70's is when the 3T was born, and if we have to set a date, 1980 would do as it stands out better than most.

Perhaps the 2 started earlyer than 1964 too? In 1960 for example? Well, but in that case, we would have a 1T of only 14 years, and that don't make any sense.

It began in 1963. Quite obviously, 1963 is the last year of the 1T and the first year of the 2T.

Also, the 2000s where similar with the 1920s NOT with the 1930s. Like in the 1920s, financial speculation and individualism flourished, and there's was nothing like a "national union", culture wars were exacerbated instead.

I guess you weren't around in the 80's? You can have financial speculation with confidence and a happy go lucky sense of security and individuality, like in the 80's, or you can have it with a dominating sense of angst that something deep down is profoundly wrong and troubling, like in the 00's. "Individualism flourished"? if anything, the 00's were permeated by a drab conformity, every grey suit called out to stand in line and proclaim political correctness, OK; economic prosperity, OK - like they meant it, anything to stop the cat from being let out of the bag. I think 2001 is a good candidate year for the 3T/4T transition, not only due to 9/11, but also that the freewheeling 3T experimentation with ideas and communication between camps (a feature of the double left wing confidence implosion, post Communist world of the 80's and 90's), met with an abrupt end in that year. Discussion was replaced by the digging of trenches, objective truth downgraded to just another instrument of propaganda, handled by a humanity reduced to mechanical dolls in a tragedy play.

And from 9/11 to the IS, Islam is still one big bad bogey-man. It has proven to be one of the enduring themes of the 4T, while in the 90's, the popular conception of Islam was more like something out of the TV-movie Harem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZBRlHFHGk0

Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche

If the 4T started in 2001, therefore the 3T would only have lasted 17 years, which is too short.

For a shortened 4T, try Spain in the 1930s. The Spanish Civil War, which in some respects resembles the American Civil War in length and decisiveness of result, ended with exhaustion of both sides and a quick freeze of the political and intellectual culture and the imposition of a rigid, traditionalist order within Spain. It's the closing of alternatives that ends the Crisis Era. For the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, France, Italy, and Japan the Crisis related to World War II ended with the end of the war. For India and Pakistan the Crisis ends with the formal partition of British India. For China the Crisis and most countries of central and southeastern Europe the Crisis ends with Commie takeovers (talk about a freeze of the political order!) With Germany the Crisis ends with the split of Germany into the Federal and "Democratic" Republics. With Indonesia it ends with independence.

Perhaps the 3T started earlier than 1984? In 1981 for example? But therefore we would have a 2T of only 17 years and again, it's too short.

The cultural ferment of the Boom Awakening exhausted itself. That popular musicians quit pretending to change the world around 1980 demonstrates that the Boom Awakening was over. The shift of much of the activity in music from folk (which practically fossilized) to country (ideal for expressing cultural traditionalism, more blatantly commercial, and not at all intellectual) among Boomers suggests an end to the Boom Awakening. Awakening-era music became 'oldies'. The assassination of John Lennon (an underrated event in the history of Anglo-American mass culture) and the election of Ronald Reagan mark ends of the cultural and political ferment of the Boom Awakening. Mainstream American mass culture became less modern -- and more clearly American.

Perhaps the 2 started earlier than 1964 too? In 1960 for example? Well, but in that case, we would have a 1T of only 14 years, and that don't make any sense.

The generation being born somewhat anticipates the time. Howe and Strauss set the Silent/Boom divide between 1942 and 1943 because a Silent child can have some memory of the Crisis, and children born in 1943 through 1945 generally have no memories of the Crisis. Children born when John F. Kennedy was President cannot remember JFK as President, but kids born when Eisenhower was President can remember the the Kennedy assassination.

Also, the 2000s where similar with the 1920s NOT with the 1930s. Like in the 1920s, financial speculation and individualism flourished, and there's was nothing like a "national union", culture wars were exacerbated instead.

With this I concur. (To be more precise about the decade I have coined the term "Double-Zero Decade" -- maybe a snide swipe at the pervasiveness of gambling as part of the American way of life?). The eighty-year distance between times is possible due to the extinction of the last child memories of influential people. As an illustration, the novel Babbitt might seem incoherent babble in any time from the Stock Market Crash of 1929 until the dot.com bust (analogous to the short-but-severe 1921 Market Crash that America got out of with a speculative boom in real estate). I also recognize the George W. Bush Presidency an analogue to the weak, permissive government that American elites loved during the Presidencies of Harding and Coolidge with Hoover at first offering more of the same. The stock markets peaked in 1929 and 2007 and endured their real crashes in 1930 and 2008 -- 78 years apart, which is close to the 80-year rule for the extinctions of childhood memories of influential people.

Narrative wise, I think the Atomic bomb to the end of Camelot (JFK assassination) works for the 1T. The 2T is between two johns, as in JFK assassination to John Lennon shooting. The 3T boundary is between two clown princes: Reagan and Clinton. Now, is the 4T 2001, 3 or 5 or 8? Well, what's new in any of these years?

I really feel like 2008 is when the masses kind of realized it was the 4T rather than it being the proper start date. Sure a lot of things happened in 2008, but nothing that has fundamentally altered the course of the nation. In fact, the national agenda of 2008 was to reestablish the status quo. 2008 didn't fundamentally alter the direction of America near as I can see. 2001 sure did, but those alterations didn't take effect until 2003, with the establishment of the DHS. Our national direction changed in 03. 05 had a lot of events, but those really seem to be mostly due to impacts from the changes made in 03.

Depending on how everything shakes down, I could see 01 being the start date, but it would require that either the 4T be self contained or that the changes of 9-11 be retroactively justified. If either we simply go back to the way things were pre-9-11 then clearly 9-11 was the jump off. If something happens and the fundamental alterations in our government become celebrated stalwarts that protect us, then clearly 9-11 is the jump off.

If, however the narrative is that we go through these 9-11 changes and it cemented am unjust government which is over thrown, or where our old government/system was decayed and had to be replaced, 03 or 05 will be your start dates. 03 probably if it's governance, 05 probably if we were to have a total change in socio-economic order. For instance, if we were to become anarcho-communists or it's probably 05, but if we come out with a re-envisioned version of Capitalist Democracy, even with a few firm socialist components, probably 03.

The only way I can see 08 being your start date is if the crisis is ending with a sort of brutal rejection of international capitalism or if we pull a World War II redux. Rather ironically, if the crisis ends with a valiant battle between coalition forces and the Axis of Evil, then 9-11 has nothing to do with the crisis. If we have an epic war with the Russians, you can bypass any of the prior problems of government narratives.

So I'm excited to see how the next few years wrap up because that's how proof will be in the pudding. If we don't start seeing things moving to a head by 2016, 2001 is way out, and likely 03 as well. If they do, 08 and 05 are out.

I'm gonna have to agree with Kepi on this one. It really depends on how things look over the next few years. I personally hold with a 2008 start date, and think the GWOT stuff will end up as a sideshow, a distraction. If things start to stabilize dramatically from about 2016 on, the Boomers are out of office, the economy booms, etc. I'd consider one of the other start dates. If things with China/Russia heat up, OTOH, and/or the economy completely implodes, I think 2008 should be the start point, with the Great Recession/Russian invasion of Georgia as the dividing line.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

That popular musicians quit pretending to change the world around 1980 demonstrates that the Boom Awakening was over.

Excellent summary. You boiled down the significance of popular music as a Turning marker to a single sentence.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

I'm gonna have to agree with Kepi on this one. It really depends on how things look over the next few years. I personally hold with a 2008 start date, and think the GWOT stuff will end up as a sideshow, a distraction. If things start to stabilize dramatically from about 2016 on, the Boomers are out of office, the economy booms, etc. I'd consider one of the other start dates. If things with China/Russia heat up, OTOH, and/or the economy completely implodes, I think 2008 should be the start point, with the Great Recession/Russian invasion of Georgia as the dividing line.

Yeah, I think China has more than enough internal problems to worry about, and even if they did want to expand, it would only piss us off if they went by boat. They have so many potential options that confronting America is pretty much the worst thing they could do. Russia has already overextended, and they don't seem to be in a dumb 4T mood.

I am expecting another drop in the markets soon, however.

The next drop will be the third drop: 2001, 2009, 2015-16. If you look for real economic values in between the nGDP noise, it comes out like a reverse head and shoulders pattern. 2001 was bad, 2009 was worse, and the next one will be the mildest in economic terms. In psychological terms, the next one might be the worst because we're already worn down, tired, and sick of the crapsack economy. I am expecting populist sentiment to grow even stronger as the economy sinks again.

But the overall economic picture would be a reversed head and shoulders pattern pointing to a huge growth era, aka 1T. The long-term bull line would line up perfectly with the solar power parity point of 2019-2020, and that could end the Nuclear Era in a much more peaceful way than it began. Cheap, renewable energy instantly kills most of our 4T nightmares, even terrorism from mostly oil-producing countries.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Excellent summary. You boiled down the significance of popular music as a Turning marker to a single sentence.

Really? 1985's ''We are the world'' may have been a bit post seasonal, but it's hard to see something a full quarter into the new turning having that much impact.