I haven't posted here in a long time, in large part because my opinion of S&H's conclusions has steadily eroded over time. But I found this information interesting from a generational perspective, and it obviously has implications with regard to S&H, turnings and all of that (whether or not those things are totally valid).



So the average birth date of the Democrats at least in consideration for the nomination is 1948, making them core Baby Boomers. Hillary Clinton is a heavy favorite, and she was born in 1947.

The average birth date of the presumed Republican candidates is 1960, which makes them almost Xers on average according to S&H. That said, some of the strongest polling candidates like Scott Walker and Rand Paul are Xers, while Jeb Bush is a Boomer born in 1953. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are not as high in the polls, but have announced or are considered more likely candidates than some of the older names.

So 2016 could be the first real case of a core Xer nominee, likely pitted against an archetypical Boomer in Hillary Clinton. Kind of interesting if that happens.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I haven't posted here in a long time, in large part because my opinion of S&H's conclusions has steadily eroded over time. But I found this information interesting from a generational perspective, and it obviously has implications with regard to S&H, turnings and all of that (whether or not those things are totally valid).



So the average birth date of the Democrats at least in consideration for the nomination is 1948, making them core Baby Boomers. Hillary Clinton is a heavy favorite, and she was born in 1947.

The average birth date of the presumed Republican candidates is 1960, which makes them almost Xers on average according to S&H. That said, some of the strongest polling candidates like Scott Walker and Rand Paul are Xers, while Jeb Bush is a Boomer born in 1953. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are not as high in the polls, but have announced or are considered more likely candidates than some of the older names.

So 2016 could be the first real case of a core Xer nominee, likely pitted against an archetypical Boomer in Hillary Clinton. Kind of interesting if that happens.

Hillary won't make it past the primary, if she even goes that far.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I haven't posted here in a long time, in large part because my opinion of S&H's conclusions has steadily eroded over time. But I found this information interesting from a generational perspective, and it obviously has implications with regard to S&H, turnings and all of that (whether or not those things are totally valid).





So the average birth date of the Democrats at least in consideration for the nomination is 1948, making them core Baby Boomers. Hillary Clinton is a heavy favorite, and she was born in 1947.

The average birth date of the presumed Republican candidates is 1960, which makes them almost Xers on average according to S&H. That said, some of the strongest polling candidates like Scott Walker and Rand Paul are Xers, while Jeb Bush is a Boomer born in 1953. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are not as high in the polls, but have announced or are considered more likely candidates than some of the older names.

So 2016 could be the first real case of a core Xer nominee, likely pitted against an archetypical Boomer in Hillary Clinton. Kind of interesting if that happens.

The PTB are landing on the Boomer candidates in both parties. It's really sad to see the field. I was hoping for better.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Hillary won't make it past the primary, if she even goes that far.

You may feel that way but the fix is already in. The PTB are going to give us Boomer candidates. And of course, the typical low information voters on both sides will not question what the PTB / MSM tell them. We here are of advanced intelligence comparatively speaking.

I was considering which thread to post the following link on. But this one is turning, pun not intended, in an apt direction.

New American Order?

Originally Posted by BillMoyers

Let me make my case, however minimally, based on five areas in which at least the faint outlines of that new system seem to be emerging: political campaigns and elections; the privatization of Washington through the marriage of the corporation and the state; the de-legitimization of our traditional system of governance; the empowerment of the national security state as an untouchable fourth branch of government; and the demobilization of “we the people.”

Whatever this may add up to, it seems to be based, at least in part, on the increasing concentration of wealth and power in a new plutocratic class and in that ever-expanding national security state. Certainly, something out of the ordinary is underway and yet its birth pangs, while widely reported, are generally categorized as aspects of an exceedingly familiar American system somewhat in disarray.

And most Americans apparently still believe that things are business as usual.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

The PTB are landing on the Boomer candidates in both parties. It's really sad to see the field. I was hoping for better.

The Baby Boomers are the only generation that really believes in corporate free-trade globalism. S&H were/are so far are wrong about the boomers curtailing their greed in order to be able to rally the country. So far they appear to be in a rush to establish an authoritarian system in which political power is determined largely by money accompanied by a heavy "status quo bias". They appear to be doing this before millies and later homies fully awaken politically because they know those generations would never willingly support the policies the boomers elites like.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

You may feel that way but the fix is already in. The PTB are going to give us Boomer candidates. And of course, the typical low information voters on both sides will not question what the PTB / MSM tell them. We here are of advanced intelligence comparatively speaking.

Maybe, but I can pretty much guarantee Hillary won't be one. She was able to avoid some ofher biggest detractors when she ran for Senate, but in a national election, the get silent detractors will always be out there ready to vote for anyone but Hillary in the primary. With her most recent tenure in the statute department, we can also add State Department Employees to that list, as well as probably a few other federal agencies. She really didn't do much to make a positive impression with federal employees.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The Baby Boomers are the only generation that really believes in corporate free-trade globalism. S&H were/are so far are wrong about the boomers curtailing their greed in order to be able to rally the country. So far they appear to be in a rush to establish an authoritarian system in which political power is determined largely by money accompanied by a heavy "status quo bias". They appear to be doing this before millies and later homies fully awaken politically because they know those generations would never willingly support the policies the boomers elites like.

If this is true, how come we hear no Xers or Millies talking about an across the board tariff? Why are young people expending all their energy on promoting LBTGqxyz issues, i.e. the social issues promoted by youthful Boomers, rather than the material problems the majority of young people face?

For example 200 years ago people worked six days a week with Sundays off, because of the 4th commandment. The workday was 12 hours long. By about 75 years ago, Saturday had been added to Sunday as a day of rest, creating the "weekend". The standard work day had shrunk from 12 hours to 8 hours. All this was achieved by changes in the culture, which was then backed up by legislation.

By 1947 teams of economic experts that had been assembled in the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve to guide economic policy during the war had been charged with helping to run the economy. The government began the regular collection of economic data to aid in this effort. The economy became to be seen as less and less part of the culture, and more and more its own independent thing, that could be studied like things in the natural world. And so economics came to be seen as separate from the popular culture, and so no longer a topic of intelligent conversation amongst ordinary people who otherwise remain fully capable of intelligently talking about other kinds of popular culture.

And yet what is more important to your well-being than the political-economy? In your youth, what things did you spend more time and effort on than the preparation for your career? If you are single or head of household, what are the elements in your life to which you devote more time and effort than obtaining an income? For example, how many hours a week do you spend working for a living compared to pursuing and having sex?

That's really simple, Mike: organizing costs money, and even well off Millennials don't have the money to do that as the only time they have not lived in an era of high prices was a short sliver of time from 08 into 09. Simply put, nobody has had the cash reserves that hasn't just come into them.

They also don't have much power in the business world. You have 2 CEOs of major companies, but when you really look at it, on the average cuspers are really just venturing into lower management, which is not where policy is set, it's where it's executed. Even there, it's not like it's full of cuspers.

Identity politics are easy for the people who really care to participate in because the financial wheels have already been greased for them. Likewise, while I agree with Cynic that Millennials aren't into globalism as it's been pushed for the last 30 years, I don't know if anyone who doesn't support international trade. It's the nasty "free trade" agreements that are the problem. Economic isolationism is a far simpler agenda than saying "trade is great, but NAFTA needs to go" because you need to have big discussions not only on what's fair, but on what can actually be done between all the political bodies involved and have reciprocal movements in each political body.

The potential Millennial electorate gets bigger every year, and will keep getting bigger until about 2025. Contemporary politicians don't really understand the Millennial Generation; they package their ideology as if America were still in the 1990s except to recognize that the GI Generation is no longer relevant.

Millennial politics begins as it does in all political generations -- locally and well out of the limelight. They are approaching the mid-30s... and one might expect some Millennial pols to offer at the least new language about concerns largely neglected today. It won't be Culture Wars.

Millennial pols will do what other generations have done: they will fill gaps.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I haven't posted here in a long time, in large part because my opinion of S&H's conclusions has steadily eroded over time. But I found this information interesting from a generational perspective, and it obviously has implications with regard to S&H, turnings and all of that (whether or not those things are totally valid).



So the average birth date of the Democrats at least in consideration for the nomination is 1948, making them core Baby Boomers. Hillary Clinton is a heavy favorite, and she was born in 1947.

The average birth date of the presumed Republican candidates is 1960, which makes them almost Xers on average according to S&H. That said, some of the strongest polling candidates like Scott Walker and Rand Paul are Xers, while Jeb Bush is a Boomer born in 1953. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are not as high in the polls, but have announced or are considered more likely candidates than some of the older names.

So 2016 could be the first real case of a core Xer nominee, likely pitted against an archetypical Boomer in Hillary Clinton. Kind of interesting if that happens.

Yep...guess who's the Grand Ol Party now?

Originally Posted by herbal tee

I was considering which thread to post the following link on. But this one is turning, pun not intended, in an apt direction.

New American Order?

And most Americans apparently still believe that things are business as usual.

Let's assume the worst, and this becomes a battle of the dynasties. Does it make a bit of difference whether we get Clinton 2.0 or Bush 3.0? It will so clearly show that the fix is in, up to the hilt. Since "we the people" don't seem to care, or, if we do doubt anything can be done to make things better. We'll just enjoy the last marshmallow roasted on this bonfire of the political vanities, and boo-hoo about what could have been.

Can we get more jaded than we are?

Originally Posted by herbal tee

I was considering which thread to post the following link on. But this one is turning, pun not intended, in an apt direction.

New American Order?



And most Americans apparently still believe that things are business as usual.

A New Political Order is one of the biggest check points in a 4T and I can't believe how folks who think this isn't a 4T, don't see what's happening. Now note what I'm about to say comes from someone who leans slightly left of center, but I think Liberals are turning a blind eye to the Libertarian RIGHT takeover and that's why they don't(want to) see this as a credible 4T or even acknowledge a 9/11 start date.

They basically don't see their side winning and that the regeneracy might have started on the libertarian conservative side of things. All things said and done, the LIB RIGHT winning doesn't mean all is well because this creates new issues that may be tackled during the next 2 and 4T. See I think the 4T solutions create new crisis issues.

This go round, our 4T solutions is addressing a Global Power that's over extending itself and has been doing so since the end of the last Crisis.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

You may feel that way but the fix is already in. The PTB are going to give us Boomer candidates. And of course, the typical low information voters on both sides will not question what the PTB / MSM tell them. We here are of advanced intelligence comparatively speaking.

There is truth in this whether you look at things from the left or right. There is a clear "ruling class" consensus, that favors the material interests of Wall Street and large corporations, and the social interests of Hollywood and academia. That ruling class clearly wants a Hillary/Jeb "choice" in 2016 which they believe will preserve the status quo regardless of the outcome.

From the conservative perspective, these divisions are seen most clearly on the issues of federalism, the size and power of the federal government, immigration and social issues. The "ruling class" in the Republican Party wants cheap labor, social liberalism and centralized power in Washington (i.e. Common Core). The voters don't.

I'm not as resigned as you are to the fact that they'll get what they want. Jeb Bush is on very shaky ground for several reasons. First, his name and lineage is a general election liability, not an asset. The argument of the elites has always been that their choices are more "electable". Jeb Bush is a very hard sell on that score, because his brother has so many detractors, and his father lost re-election (after having opposed Ronald Reagan in 1980, calling his policies "voodoo economics", broken his promise not to raise taxes, etc). His image as an out of touch elite also helped spawn the populist Ross Perot, who is responsible for Bill Clinton being elected twice with a popular vote percentage in the 40s.

Hillary Clinton appears more likely to get her party's nomination, because of the lack of credible challengers, and the fact that she's got overwhelming support from Democrat primary voters. However, recent events like the email issue may be eroding that. Enough to dislodge her as the nominee? Right now that's doubtful. But who knows.

What seems clear among voters of all persuasions is the fact that a dynastic election between a Clinton and a Bush is something the voters do not want. Democrats are perhaps more convinced than Republicans that they have no choice. They also believe a Clinton is more popular than a Bush.

Originally Posted by Kepi

That's really simple, Mike: organizing costs money, and even well off Millennials don't have the money to do that as the only time they have not lived in an era of high prices was a short sliver of time from 08 into 09. Simply put, nobody has had the cash reserves that hasn't just come into them.

That's a bit whiny, don't you think? Coal miners organized, when they were nearly indentured. The same applies in general to industrial workers almost everywhere. Money is not needed to talk among your peers and act.

Originally Posted by Kepi ...

They also don't have much power in the business world. You have 2 CEOs of major companies, but when you really look at it, on the average cuspers are really just venturing into lower management, which is not where policy is set, it's where it's executed. Even there, it's not like it's full of cuspers.

Sorry, but there is no chance that inequality will be addressed amicably. It will have to be demanded and possibly extracted from those with the money.

Originally Posted by Kepi ...

Identity politics are easy for the people who really care to participate in because the financial wheels have already been greased for them. Likewise, while I agree with Cynic that Millennials aren't into globalism as it's been pushed for the last 30 years, I don't know if anyone who doesn't support international trade. It's the nasty "free trade" agreements that are the problem. Economic isolationism is a far simpler agenda than saying "trade is great, but NAFTA needs to go" because you need to have big discussions not only on what's fair, but on what can actually be done between all the political bodies involved and have reciprocal movements in each political body.

Identity politics is the fault of older gens. Boomers, more than others, made it a basket of critical issues. No, getting married is not as important as eating, but, on a political scale, it's treated that way. Then again, it's just People Magazine stuff: easy to digest. Economics is hard and more than a little opaque. Effort is required, so identity politics it is.

Originally Posted by millennialX

A New Political Order is one of the biggest check points in a 4T and I can't believe how folks who think this isn't a 4T, don't see what's happening. Now note what I'm about to say comes from someone who leans slightly left of center, but I think Liberals are turning a blind eye to the Libertarian RIGHT takeover and that's why they don't(want to) see this as a credible 4T or even acknowledge a 9/11 start date.

They basically don't see their side winning and that the regeneracy might have started on the libertarian conservative side of things. All things said and done, the LIB RIGHT winning doesn't mean all is well because this creates new issues that may be tackled during the next 2 and 4T. See I think the 4T solutions create new crisis issues.

This go round, our 4T solutions is addressing a Global Power that's over extending itself and has been doing so since the end of the last Crisis.

Like I said, I have my doubts about S&H, and the biggest is their conclusions. The way they characterized the generations and turnings that were in the future when they wrote is not looking very good. A theory without good predictive power is highly suspect.

So in order to conceptualize these generations and turnings taking place within their general framework, you basically have to acknowledge a 4T unlike anything they predicted, and a Millenial generation unlike they predicted.

We clearly have a "Prophet" generation driving society to the brink of collapse. However, what S&H predicted for the 4T was more or less a replay of the last 4T. They claimed that foreign policy and economic policy would be the primary concerns. Instead, those issues, while clearly present, have taken a backseat to what I would say is a replay or apotheosis of the Baby Boom "counter culture" movement of the 1960s, which has calcified into the Democratic Party's complete reliance on "identity politics" as their organizing principle. Barack Obama is the ultimate avatar of that movement, as a (half) non-white anti-war candidate. As the 4T (assuming there is one) has progressed, the left and the Democratic Party have become more and more extreme and virulent about their "sexual revolution", and are now on a quest to effectively outlaw all of the world's major religions in its name.

Meanwhile the Millenial generation is heavily libertarian on social issues, favoring the old 70s Boomer attitude on "sex, drugs and rock & roll", and anti-war, while being heavily conformist on economic issues, as noted above. Just like their Boomer parents, teachers and role models. Which is almost the polar opposite of what S&H predicted.

So along (perhaps in 2016) come the "Nomads" of Generation X, with previous analogs in Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. The promise of Nomads is to bring the crusades of the Prophets to a screeching halt, and restore order, peace and prosperity to a society on the brink of collapse. In the last 1T, that was seen most clearly in an about-face to the far left, in the form of communism at home and abroad. The peace of the 1T was then eventually shattered when a relatively moderate, anti-communist "Hero" president was assassinated by a communist. It should also be remembered that Truman ended WWII, and Eisenhower ended the Korean War, both to popular approval (while the entry into Korea was unpopular for Truman). Even though far fewer citizens have served in the military conflicts of recent years, the war-weariness may be a correct analogy.

I guess all of that could suggest that S&H were on the right track, but their predictions were very bad. Maybe the economy or foreign policy will return with a vengeance as the central issues of the day, but right now they look like subsets of the primary issue, which is the Boomer left's relentless and increasingly Orwellian obsession with the crusades of their youth. I'd like to believe that the 4T which started on 9/11/2001 will be ended by the actions of an Xer president elected in 2016. But I don't know how much of this whole theory to buy into in general.

Originally Posted by millennialX

Yep...guess who's the Grand Ol Party now?

Younger, and also more racially and ethnically diverse than the Democrats.

People here emphasize the generations of candidates. That is understandable.

It's wrong, though; it makes little difference. The difference is the policies and the abilities of candidates, and that is an individual matter. Nor does racial or ethnic diversity make a difference, if a black candidate like Carson embraces policies that would further undermine and retard the advance of the folks in his ethnic group.

If we are interested in choosing between going forward or going backward, we'd better look at the candidates and the policies they support, not just whether they are Boomers or Xers.

Still, it is true that Xers have produced more of the candidates committed to the policies of regression and decline, which came into effect as they came of age. Xers have been more conservative in youth than other generations, though Boomers have become more conservative as they aged. Still, those motivated to run are those who experienced and took to heart enough the ideals of progress from the time they came of age to become candidates now.

I expect though that in time there will be Xers who will be able to take to heart and run on behalf of progress rather than decline. The differences between generations in general are not as sharp as this candidate list implies.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I guess all of that could suggest that S&H were on the right track, but their predictions were very bad. Maybe the economy or foreign policy will return with a vengeance as the central issues of the day, but right now they look like subsets of the primary issue, which is the Boomer left's relentless and increasingly Orwellian obsession with the crusades of their youth. I'd like to believe that the 4T which started on 9/11/2001 will be ended by the actions of an Xer president elected in 2016. But I don't know how much of this whole theory to buy into in general.

What if whatever ideas that are championed by the young prophet generation in the 2T becomes what the new order and civics work towards?

So we get what we are focused on.

Most Boomers (right and left) focused on social (sex) issues and look at what's clearly capturing the attention.

Meanwhile it does look like the Right is winning the fiscal war so I see our 1T looking like this:

socially left and economically right.

I welcome back Mr. Just Passing Through and hope he contributes more to the debate. People like me will continue to take the other side, and may the best ideas win.

Millennials have proven to be typical civics. It impresses me, in fact, just how correct the predictions by Strauss and Howe about millennials were. Their crime rate has plummuted, because they respect law and civil society a lot more, and less of them are adventurous, risk-taking challengers to local authority figures. But they are more willing to question and even rebel against the status quo where it counts; understanding the system and what needs to change so more people can advance. Hooked on social media to the point of obsession, they work together in groups while Xers prefer to go it alone. They have voted liberal in presidential elections, like the GIs, and probably will continue to do so, although they still have not learned all the civic virtues when it comes to voting and organizing politically. They will need to learn those if they hope to have the impact which many of them say they want. Their musical culture is cleaner, more melodic and more upbeat than the raucous and disharmonious Xer youth musical culture, and their lyrics are shallower and less challenging to authority. It is amazing indeed just how much S&H got right, and other similar authors agree with them about the traits of millennials.

Cultural liberation in general does not go backwards as much as JPT and S&H might hope; cultural freedoms are rarely reversed by any generation, and the social conservatism that JPT believes in will not return. Tolerance increasing, instead, reveals the civic values of millies, and their willingness to look at people as they are, rather than as religious authority tells them to look at others. That to me shows civic virtue, not vice; and also shows the more collegial and more secular attitude typical among civic generations. These attitudes show up in many ways. But it's clear that, among millennials, although they emulate some of the adventurous conduct which their Boomers parents started, some of the freewheeling behavior typical of many Boomers and Xers is less evident. Drug use is down, not up, for example. We saw the stats posted here that millies want to have families. So family values are back among millies. I'm not sure about out-of-wedlock births.

Here's an interesting article about that:
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/arc...merica/277084/

quoting:
One obvious reason that you have a higher percentage of children born out of wedlock in the black community is that the number of unmarried women (mothers or not) has grown a lot, while number of married women has grown only a little.

But while the number of unmarried black women has substantially grown, the actual birthrate (measured by births per 1000) for black women is it the lowest point that its ever documented.

So while a larger number of black women are choosing not to marry, many of those women are also choosing not to bring kids into the world. But there is something else.

.... the drop in the birthrate for unmarried black women is mirrored by an even steeper drop among married black women. Indeed, whereas at one point married black women were having more kids than married white women, they are now having less.

I point this out to show that the idea that the idea that, somehow, the black community has fallen into a morass of cultural pathology is convenient nostalgia. There is nothing "immoral" or "pathological" about deciding not to marry. In the glorious black past, women who made that decision were more--not less--likely to become mothers. People who are truly concerned about the percentage of out of wedlock births would do well to hector married black women for moral duty to churn out babies in the manner of their glorious foremothers. But no one would do that. Because it would be absurd.

Theories of cultural decline are irrelevant. Policy not so much. Given the contact rates between the justice system and young black men, and given how that contact affects your employment prospects, the decision by many black women to not marry, and to have less children, strikes me as logical. If we want to change marriage rates, we need to change our policies. Nostalgia is magic. Policy is the hero.
(unquote)

As for Boomers, the observations posted here by many, including JPT here on this thread, are as usual way off the mark. The "crusades of our youth" are still the needs of our time. That's why the older candidates take the right positions on them, and Xer candidates do not. Environmental issues, peace issues, consumer issues, and the ability of all people to share in the common wealth, regardless of class, race or gender; these remain the issues of our time, because since Reagan we have gone into reverse on nearly all of them. The culture wars and the cultural liberation issues remain, but clearly, if you listen to Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or Hillary Clinton, it is the economic issue that is front and center. The failure of trickle-down Reaganomics and libertarian policies regarding business is the main message from the boomer left, and the alternatives could not be more clear. Millennials will support these boomer voices and add their own, if they continue to live up to their archetype.

Originally Posted by millennialX

What if whatever ideas that are championed by the young prophet generation in the 2T becomes what the new order and civics work towards?

So we get what we are focused on.

Most Boomers (right and left) focused on social (sex) issues and look at what's clearly capturing the attention.

Meanwhile it does look like the Right is winning the fiscal war so I see our 1T looking like this:

socially left and economically right.

I think a better way of looking at it is to think of the entire agenda of the Boomer left's movement, pushing farther and harder over time, until society turns around and says, "enough". "This far, but no further". As in the example of the last 1T, that requires a forceful and determined repudiation of the far left. That does not mean that everything they did will be undone, but it means that they themselves will overstep their bounds and outstay their welcome, and will be rejected by society in general, while certain specifics of their agenda may be accepted. In other words, you can like Social Security, but that doesn't mean you support full blown Marxism. Yet the Marxists refuse to take no for an answer, so they have to be stopped.

That is, if S&H are reliable. Which I have my doubts about.

What you're describing ("socially left and economically right") is the agenda of the "ruling class" as currently constituted. I'm not sure they're going to get everything they want. The people are becoming more disenchanted with them every day.

Originally Posted by millennialX

What if whatever ideas that are championed by the young prophet generation in the 2T becomes what the new order and civics work towards?

So we get what we are focused on.

Most Boomers (right and left) focused on social (sex) issues and look at what's clearly capturing the attention.

Meanwhile it does look like the Right is winning the fiscal war so I see our 1T looking like this:

socially left and economically right.

The economic right may not end up winning the fiscal war. They will have to lose if our country is not to become a banana republic. Millennials will need to power the way out of the economic right morass. No, the left needs to win in a 4T; it always does. There are 13 years left; don't judge a 4T by its first third, or try to dodge the issue by claiming that the 4T started earlier.

Everything is going along just as I predicted. The longer-term view is usually correct. The 1850s were followed by the 1860s, and the 2010s will be followed by the 2020s. Count on it.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I think a better way of looking at it is to think of the entire agenda of the Boomer left's movement, pushing farther and harder over time, until society turns around and says, "enough". "This far, but no further". As in the example of the last 1T, that requires a forceful and determined repudiation of the far left. That does not mean that everything they did will be undone, but it means that they themselves will overstep their bounds and outstay their welcome, and will be rejected by society in general, while certain specifics of their agenda may be accepted. In other words, you can like Social Security, but that doesn't mean you support full blown Marxism.

That is, if S&H are reliable. Which I have my doubts about.

That usually happens to one extent or another when the 1T starts. Look for that around 2030, and not before. On the other hand, the next 1T looks to be more unstable and activist than the last one, so conservatives may be dissappointed to an extent. And as you suggested, the 1950s preserved many of the achievements of the 4T Missionary-led Left, while rejecting their dominant rulership at the polls for a while and resisting further pushes, and also persecuted "communists" for a while too.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That usually happens to one extent or another when the 1T starts. Look for that around 2030, and not before. On the other hand, the next 1T looks to be more unstable and activist than the last one, so conservatives may be dissappointed to an extent. And as you suggested, the 1950s preserved many of the achievements of the 4T Missionary-led Left, while rejecting their dominant rulership at the polls for a while and resisting further pushes, and also persecuted "communists" for a while too.

I think you're engaged in a heavy dose of wishful thinking, within the context of S&H. There is no way the 4T will last until 2030. The generational time frame is clearly well past the point where Boomers are at their peak. Xers are going to take over fully very soon. I think I remember saying in the past, and it still holds true, that if there is any validity to S&H whatsoever, the 4T started on 9/11/2001. Interpreting things any other way makes S&H completely indefensible. Their whole theory falls apart.

Here's a question I want to throw out and again provide the disclaimer that I'm a New Deal fan, but does the progressive side always win the 4T? I say yes, but what is "Progressive?"

If the New Deal world is status quo and we are seeing holes in that and the New Left/ Neo Con agenda, then is the Libertarian view progressive?

Does what we can consider progressive change and is it always tied to what we think the Left is or does it become the NEW LEFT?