Originally Posted by JDW

In order to facilitate the discussion, when we talk about the beginning of the 4T, what are we actually describing? Most turnings reflect definable changes in mood:

Examples:
Revolutionary 4T - Colonists recognized that they were no longer loyal to the Crown.
Era of Good Feeling 1T - The United States had defined itself.
Civil War 4T - A realization that America could become two countries
Great Depression - Fear
American High - Faith in American exceptionalism
Consciousness Revolution - Distrust in American leadership
Culture War 3T- Restoration of trust in America's leadership role

Not so sure about that last one!

Current 4T - ?????

Define what the mood change was, then we can better understand when it started.

The mood change was a feeling that the economy could collapse, by suddenly falling off a cliff in an unstoppable way. This Crisis has left us in a mood of economic insecurity, due to an economy that still only works for a few, and a stalemated, crippled government presiding over a divided people; complicated by perceived chaos abroad about which we seem unable to do anything.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The mood change was a feeling that the economy could collapse, by suddenly falling off a cliff in an unstoppable way. This Crisis has left us in a mood of economic insecurity, due to an economy that still only works for a few, and a stalemated, crippled government presiding over a divided people; complicated by perceived chaos abroad about which we seem unable to do anything.

The Crisis has barely begun, and it has sorted out little. Everyone has an agenda. We are not quite seventy years away from the end of the last Crisis Era, although we are nearly "Four score and seven years ago" from the beginning of the previous Crisis. "Four score and seven years" from the American Declaration of Independence (which defined one Crisis) was the Battle of Gettysburg -- and, more critically, the Battle of Chattanooga that doomed the Confederacy. For a moment of history to the American Declaration of Independence similar in potential to change the world, but of consummate and destructive infamy, I take the rise of Satan Incarnate in Germany in 1933.

1933 + 87 = 2020.

Originally Posted by JDW

In order to facilitate the discussion, when we talk about the beginning of the 4T, what are we actually describing? Most turnings reflect definable changes in mood:

Examples:
Revolutionary 4T - Colonists recognized that they were no longer loyal to the Crown.
Era of Good Feeling 1T - The United States had defined itself.
Civil War 4T - A realization that America could become two countries
Great Depression - Fear
American High - Faith in American exceptionalism
Consciousness Revolution - Distrust in American leadership
Culture War 3T- Restoration of trust in America's leadership role
Current 4T - ?????

Define what the mood change was, then we can better understand when it started.

how about, western society choosing security over personal freedoms and rights.

Originally Posted by tg63

how about, western society choosing security over personal freedoms and rights.

Yeah, that's pretty much straight from the book.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Yeah, that's pretty much straight from the book.

Not really, not a "mood," and not something that really concerns too many people. And of course, such a "mood" would dictate a 2001 start date.

Originally Posted by tg63

how about, western society choosing security over personal freedoms and rights.

I'd like to see the Department of Homeland security abolished. I can hardly imagine a division of government so open to a KGB-style secret police as that one. We have plenty of federal law enforcement as it is -- federal law-enforcement agencies relating to every federal concern from revenue collection to the content of the mails to the military.

Just as scummy and similarly dangerous -- 'our' economic elites practically demand that we surrender out basic liberties for economic gain -- almost entirely theirs, mind you.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It might not work as the Hard Right wishes it to work. The Crisis Era is still young. Full consolidation of power by the America Right seems unlikely now, at least through normal politics. That's not to say that a coup is impossible even if there is no precedent for such.

One would think that the GOP would try to win support with the old method of pork-barrel politics -- build a dam or an expressway in swing districts and give credit to the Party. But that has yet to happen.

I can compartmentalize my ideology enough to discuss the theory without having to debate your politics. My point is that if I take you literally that the 4T is all about the TEA party, then Obama's election itself was a 3T event. Nobody else is suggesting such a thing, and I doubt that you really intended to.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not so sure about that last one!

How would you word it then, Alan? While you may not have agreed with that trust, it was the rise of America as the lone "superpower." We are obviously past that point.

The mood change was a feeling that the economy could collapse, by suddenly falling off a cliff in an unstoppable way. This Crisis has left us in a mood of economic insecurity, due to an economy that still only works for a few, and a stalemated, crippled government presiding over a divided people; complicated by perceived chaos abroad about which we seem unable to do anything.

How is that different from the feeling that some third world country could wreak havoc within our own borders, or for that matter that China could yank the financial rug out from under us?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The Crisis has barely begun, and it has sorted out little. Everyone has an agenda. We are not quite seventy years away from the end of the last Crisis Era, although we are nearly "Four score and seven years ago" from the beginning of the previous Crisis. "Four score and seven years" from the American Declaration of Independence (which defined one Crisis) was the Battle of Gettysburg -- and, more critically, the Battle of Chattanooga that doomed the Confederacy. For a moment of history to the American Declaration of Independence similar in potential to change the world, but of consummate and destructive infamy, I take the rise of Satan Incarnate in Germany in 1933.

1933 + 87 = 2020.

I think there is evidence that we are living in a time of accelerated turnings. I think there is bias in the idea that anything short of 20 years is too short for a turning. Had S&H not been locked into the idea, they might have seen 1981 as an obvious catalyst for the 3T (either the return of the hostages or the assassination attempt on Reagan - both of which were moments of tremendous emotional relief). The fact is there are now five stages of life instead of four. They are youth (Homeland), coming of age (Millennial), midlife (Xer), retiring (Boomer)and elderhood (Silent). Obviously there are GI still around just as there are there are younger members of the other five generations that have not yet made the transition.

Originally Posted by tg63

how about, western society choosing security over personal freedoms and rights.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Yeah, that's pretty much straight from the book.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not really, not a "mood," and not something that really concerns too many people. And of course, such a "mood" would dictate a 2001 start date.

There has however been more of a general willingness to allow the government to be the arbiter of both freedom and security. Based on that the catalyst would seem to be 9/11.

Originally Posted by JDW

I can compartmentalize my ideology enough to discuss the theory without having to debate your politics. My point is that if I take you literally that the 4T is all about the TEA party, then Obama's election itself was a 3T event. Nobody else is suggesting such a thing, and I doubt that you really intended to.

The Hard Right is real, and it is influential. I see America terribly polarized, perhaps as badly as Spain in the 1930s. Same results? I certainly hope not!

But so is Barack Obama real, and he inspired resistance that manifested itself in concerted efforts to resist him. Or would the effort to turn the calendar back a few decades politically have happened anyway under a pliant Republican President? Maybe Barack Obama does not matter as much as many of us wanted to believe -- whether we thought him the solution or the worst thing to ever happen to America.

History shows four classes of people who cannot be trusted with democracy -- big landowners (think of feudal lords, the planters of the Old South and the Junkers of Germany), tycoons and financiers, administrative elites (including soldiers), and intellectuals (whether shamans, priests, or university professors). When any one of these classes dominates, democracy is impossible. When they must compete for power by seeking mass support, democracy can flourish. When they rule in lockstep (the extreme might be Spain under Francisco Franco), democracy is impossible or meaningless.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Consider one of the "female professions": nursing. That work has always been physically demanding, and is even life threatening in some cases. Consider the nurses who have to move massively overweight patients to treat bed sores or plot them on a bed pan. If anything, industrial jobs are far LESS demanding than that.

Back in the day, there were nurses and there were orderlies. Then, cost cutting hit. Now, you can't find too many orderlies and the nurses have to do it all most of the time. Which means, lots of things done quite poorly. Without getting into the gory details, I've witnessed many aspects of this from the perspective of someone concerned with a patient.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I'd like to see the Department of Homeland security abolished. I can hardly imagine a division of government so open to a KGB-style secret police as that one. We have plenty of federal law enforcement as it is -- federal law-enforcement agencies relating to every federal concern from revenue collection to the content of the mails to the military.

Just as scummy and similarly dangerous -- 'our' economic elites practically demand that we surrender out basic liberties for economic gain -- almost entirely theirs, mind you.

The whole reason for the DHS was someone thought we needed another band aid to deal with the horrid, destructive and ultimately, treasonous, FBI - CIA schism.

Originally Posted by JDW

I think there is evidence that we are living in a time of accelerated turnings. I think there is bias in the idea that anything short of 20 years is too short for a turning. Had S&H not been locked into the idea, they might have seen 1981 as an obvious catalyst for the 3T (either the return of the hostages or the assassination attempt on Reagan - both of which were moments of tremendous emotional relief). The fact is there are now five stages of life instead of four. They are youth (Homeland), coming of age (Millennial), midlife (Xer), retiring (Boomer)and elderhood (Silent). Obviously there are GI still around just as there are there are younger members of the other five generations that have not yet made the transition.

I have my idea of an assassination far more important to the cultural life of the English-speaking world: that of John Lennon. Soon afterward the popular culture quit pretending to any high purpose. That's about when the bubblegum music of Generation X got an attitude. Punk. Grunge.

Here's a caricature from 1984, in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWH31pUkMF8

There were still people trying in their own self-righteous way to save the world -- but they were all adults now. Youth were more expressing their angst and discontent.

...What has changed? It still takes nearly 20 years to reach adulthood, another nearly 20 to reach middle age (most significantly menopause in women), another 20 to reach retirement age, and another 20 to get old and decrepit. Not so long ago farm laborers and industrial workers were dying off at 60 or so.

Giving 2000/2001 as the divide between the Millennial and Homeland generation I can suggest that there are typically four active adult generations at once. If at the start of 1995 one saw the pattern of

GI (Civic, 71+)
Silent (Adaptive, 53 - 70)
Boom (Idealist, 35 - 52)
X (Reactive, 14 - 34)
Millennial (Civic, to age 13)
Homeland (not yet born)

... ten years later, we had


GI (Civic, 81+)
Silent (Adaptive, 63 - 80)
Boom (Idealist, 45 - 62)
X (Reactive, 24 - 44)
Millennial (Civic, 5 - 33)
Homeland (to age 4)

A hundred years earlier, people in their 70s were rare in public life. Today people with the best jobs on Earth (like politicians, creative people, attorneys, physicians, scientists, university professors, and journalists) are living in to their 80s and staying active so long as they can.

In the early part of the Double-Zero decade the Civic component of public life went from just past the usual retirement age (but don't ask about Mike Wallace or Harry Byrd) to young adulthood. In the 1910s what passed for the Civic component (the Gilded took the role awkwardly) vanished as the Gilded became practically extinct before the GI generation started to take the role in the early 1920s. Typically there were three active adult generations present at any one time (most of the time) before the 20th century, and the deficiency of one generational behavior created the faults that colored a time.

So far the Silent have taken some cues from the GI generation -- remaining active and connected, moderating their drinking and not smoking at all, and watching their weight. I expect the pattern to hold for Boomers.

Originally Posted by JDW

I can compartmentalize my ideology enough to discuss the theory without having to debate your politics. My point is that if I take you literally that the 4T is all about the TEA party, then Obama's election itself was a 3T event. Nobody else is suggesting such a thing, and I doubt that you really intended to.

Well, the events happened in rapid succession. The crash, which facilitated Obama's election, and very soon after the reactionaries who could not stomach such a thing got busy (the Tea Party).

Certainly the extreme reactionary nature of the Republican Party is a major aspect of the Crisis we face, and the divide among the people that enables it-- a portion of whom are consumed by destructive ideologies. And certainly the repeated obstructions caused by this party is keeping our nation in a crisis mode perpetually, and stalling any recovery from the Crisis for most people. But I suppose a conservative might not see it that way. And yet, it's hard to deny from either side that our government is polarized and dysfunctional.

Originally Posted by JDW

There has however been more of a general willingness to allow the government to be the arbiter of both freedom and security. Based on that the catalyst would seem to be 9/11.

But I don't see that the government being the arbiter of freedom and security is 1) anything new, and 2) a crisis event.

I see a 3T parallel between the repressions under Wilson during WWI, and the Patriot Act during the Afghan/Iraq wars.

Originally Posted by JDW

I think there is evidence that we are living in a time of accelerated turnings. I think there is bias in the idea that anything short of 20 years is too short for a turning. Had S&H not been locked into the idea, they might have seen 1981 as an obvious catalyst for the 3T (either the return of the hostages or the assassination attempt on Reagan - both of which were moments of tremendous emotional relief). The fact is there are now five stages of life instead of four. They are youth (Homeland), coming of age (Millennial), midlife (Xer), retiring (Boomer)and elderhood (Silent). Obviously there are GI still around just as there are there are younger members of the other five generations that have not yet made the transition.

It would be hard to make a 5-stage cycle into anything like the cycle that Strauss and Howe conceived. It's an idea, but it also implies that generations are not alternating between dominant and recessive, and that there is no polarity between civic and prophet; symbolized by the conflict between Caesar and Christ, and no opposing nature between nomad and adaptive/artist either.

There's no need to see 1980/81 as the end of the Awakening. 1984 was definitely the launch-date of the new mood. I lived through it and it makes total sense. 1981-83 were years of a lingering Awakening. Activists still pursued the same kinds of causes, and Reagan's warmongering and favor-the-rich policies were not yet popular or accepted. Human potential movements were still strong, people were very widely interested in them, and books were being published that summarized the ideas of the Awakening. They may be forgotten now among THIS crowd, but they were quite famous and well-read at the time.

Events speeded up the turnings in the previous 4T and 1T. Hitler brought WWII to an early end with his attack in Belgium in the Winter of 1944-45 (the battle of the bulge). Hitler had also forced development of the atom bomb, which also abruptly ended the war with Japan. And JFK's assassination brought the 1T to an early end too. The 2T was of normal length. So turnings slowed down to make up for it in our 3T, and will do so again in the 4T.

Originally Posted by JDW

How would you word it then, Alan? While you may not have agreed with that trust, it was the rise of America as the lone "superpower." We are obviously past that point.

Yes, I thought of that; although this occurred 5 years after the official start of the 3T, and about 9 years after you think it started. So no such situation could be a catalyst, I don't think.

How is that different from the feeling that some third world country could wreak havoc within our own borders, or for that matter that China could yank the financial rug out from under us?

I'm not sure what you point is there. Is this your description of the 3T or 4T? I don't think either of these are over-riding concerns during the current era. But those who support the Tea Party look upon our national debt as part of our Crisis, and fear of China over-taking us or recalling it's financial investment in America is part of that notion too. The debt has been rising fast since Reagan, but as long as the Republicans were in power, the Tea Party folks were not worried about it, despite its explosion under Shrub II. And Clinton had been reversing it. Obama's election and the stimulus he got passed brought out the conservative reaction to the debt, which in turn has crippled our government far more than our debt itself has done.

Kepi,

While I'm not entirely happy with your response, I did see it and do intend to answer. I've just been too busy to do a proper sit-down-and-tackle-it thus far. Soon.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I have my idea of an assassination far more important to the cultural life of the English-speaking world: that of John Lennon. Soon afterward the popular culture quit pretending to any high purpose. That's about when the bubblegum music of Generation X got an attitude. Punk. Grunge.

I agree. It was one of several events in a short period of time suggesting that the awakening was over:
1) The end of any hope of the Beatles getting back together.
2) The feeling that there could actually be order after an assassination attempt (Reagan and the Pope).
3) Pride in Americans returning home (the hostages).
4) A substantial percentage of Boomers trusting someone over 70 to inspire them.
5) The discovery of AIDS, bringing an end to the “sexual revolution.”

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well, the events happened in rapid succession. The crash, which facilitated Obama's election, and very soon after the reactionaries who could not stomach such a thing got busy (the Tea Party).

REACTIONARY noun re•ac•tion•ary \rē-ˈak-shə-ˌner-ē\
: one who lacks the ability to stomach a change such that one does not believe in
synonym: hippie

Alan, please tell me what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But I don't see that the government being the arbiter of freedom and security is 1) anything new, and 2) a crisis event.

I see a 3T parallel between the repressions under Wilson during WWI, and the Patriot Act during the Afghan/Iraq wars.

It was not necessarily new to history, but it was certainly a change from what had been politically acceptable in recent history.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The debt has been rising fast since Reagan, but as long as the Republicans were in power, the Tea Party folks were not worried about it, despite its explosion under Shrub II.

That’s an unfair characterization. Reagan promised to cut taxes and cut spending. Conservatives were very hopeful that he could deliver on that. He didn’t, and conservatives were disappointed. We can point fingers and say the Democrats wouldn’t cooperate with him on the spending part. We can even say that Reagan, Bush Sr and the other Republican leaders may not have been in earnest. But to suggest that the average current Tea Party voters did not care when Republicans were in power is simply not true. There simply was no alternative (other than third party presidential candidates, whom many voted for) promising to do what the Republicans had promised. The difference is that when Democrats are in power, the opposition party promises to do what conservatives like.

And Clinton had been reversing it.

Clinton slowed the deficit (he did NOT actually eliminate it, though he came close) only because Republicans demanded a slowing in spending (and those weren’t actual cuts). I never saw Democrats (other than Fritz Hollings adding his name to Graham-Rudman) clambering to pass a balanced budget.

Obama's election and the stimulus he got passed brought out the conservative reaction to the debt, which in turn has crippled our government far more than our debt itself has done.

Again, tell me how the Republicans have hindered Obama. If Congress does not give him his way, then the Supreme Court does. If that doesn’t work, Obama just goes ahead and does it anyway!

You’re right. The Tea Party folk have trouble stomaching that.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Kepi,

While I'm not entirely happy with your response, I did see it and do intend to answer. I've just been too busy to do a proper sit-down-and-tackle-it thus far. Soon.

Word. It's been that kinda winter.

Originally Posted by JDW

REACTIONARY noun re•ac•tion•ary \rē-ˈak-shə-ˌner-ē\
: one who lacks the ability to stomach a change such that one does not believe in
synonym: hippie

Alan, please tell me what you are talking about.

Certainly not a hippie.

It's quite obvious; the right-wing reactionary Tea Party is against government spending, regulation and taxes. They call it all "socialism." TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already. They oppose all government spending and taxes that moderates and liberals understand are necessary to conduct government services. The Tea Party reactionaries are reacting against these services and want to shut them down. The Tea Party is composed of the same folks who supported Reagan, Gingrich and George W Bush. They feel entitled to power, and react strongly against any Democratic president or speaker, as if they have no right to be elected. They impeached Clinton for no reason in 1998, and shut down most of his legislative agenda during his administration. They hate Obama because he's black and/or because he's a liberal, and have shut down all his programs since Jan 2011. They react against government spending, and so were enraged that such a thing as a government stimulus was passed early in 2009, when most economists realize that stimulus is needed in such a severe recession-- the recession that the reactionaries themselves caused with their deregulation policies. The result is a central aspect of this 4T: near-total government dysfunction.

So, the Crash, Obama's election; the Tea Party reaction; a rapid, linked succession of catalytic events that mark the start of a 4T.