The historian Arthur Schlesinger found a pattern in US history somewhat similar to what Howe/Strauss formulated, the sociopolitical mood swings between what he called public purpose eras(or liberal eras) and private interests eras(or conservative eras). Public purpose eras roughly correspond to social moments and private interests to 1T/3Ts, he proposed that public purpose eras occur about every 30 years or so:

Schlesinger defined these to be “self-generating and autonomous”. They begin in the mentality of the masses, rather than creations of influential individuals of a time period. Leaders or politicians are representations of the “mood”, chosen to express the voice of the majority. Shifts in the national mentality are initiated when discontent with present conditions over time drives Americans to pursue a new trend that promises to satisfy the interest of the masses. This discontent, described by Schlesinger as “inextinguishable”, drives the cycles of change in national politics.

Public purpose
The values of Public Purpose assess the reality, often the consequences of a certain revolution. In times of complex social relations and economic and political confusion, the need for equality and opportunity arises. Due to certain, recurring causes in history such as division in wealth and social class distinctions, the majority begins to question the meaning of “liberalism”. Schlesinger explains that in “modern liberalism”, the government must intervene to ensure the protection of the common good. The concerns with “social responsibility” and “commonwealth” often involve the regulation and control of the government. Compared to the stages of Private Interest, times of Public Purpose are usually ephemeral “bursts of reform”. The idealistic goals of this period are only to ensure that government intervention is possible in times of need. The ideals of Public Purpose might include a redistribution of wealth and power and the protection of civil rights.

Private interest
This value system stresses a non-interventionist government, especially in its economy. Resulting from the 18th century fears of tyranny and a strong federal power, the free society is where an individual controls his own actions. The government’s only functions are to maintain order and structure. The values of Private Interest bear a strong resemblance to Adam Smith’s theories of the laissez-faire economy (free market) and also the invisible hand. Smith proposed that the collective result of individuals with a variety of purposes is an economy that will profit the entire society.
Ideally in a Private Interest system, government must respect the “sanctity of private property”. This means that individuals have the freedom to pursue their own interests, but also bear the responsibility for success or failure. One of the possible disadvantages of such Social Darwinism is that the wealthy rise to the top, leaving the poor to fend for themselves, although some poor and middle class people become rich as well and some rich become poor. Another problem that may be present is political corruption. Overall, “survival of the fittest” may lead to “concentration of power”, “evangelicalism”, and “limited citizenship”. In connection to history, periods of Private Interest are often associated with times of economic prosperity.

The eras he laid out.

1829-1841 -L- Jacksonian Democracy
1841-1861 -C- Domination of National Government by Slaveowners
1861-1869 -L- Abolition of Slavery and Reconstruction
1869-1901 -C- The Gilded Age
1901-1919 -L- The Progressive Era
1919-1931 -C- Republican Restoration
1931-1947 -L- The New Deal
1947-1962 -C- The Eisenhower Era
1962-1978 -L- Sixties Radicalism
1978-???? -C- Gilded Age II
*-L- is liberal, -C- is conservative

My question is which era are we currently in, he began the private interest era around 1978 and said that would last until about 1990 but the 1990s and 2000s were clearly still part of the private interest era. Maybe it's too early to tell but it seems the US is now entering a public purpose era with Occupy, LBGT activism, Ferguson/#BlackLivesMatter, ect. It might have begun in 2009 with Obama becoming president.

Originally Posted by Emman85

The historian Arthur Schlesinger found a pattern in US history somewhat similar to what Howe/Strauss formulated, the sociopolitical mood swings between what he called public purpose eras(or liberal eras) and private interests eras(or conservative eras). Public purpose eras roughly correspond to social moments and private interests to 1T/3Ts, he proposed that public purpose eras occur about every 30 years or so:







The eras he laid out.

1829-1841 -L- Jacksonian Democracy
1841-1861 -C- Domination of National Government by Slaveowners
1861-1869 -L- Abolition of Slavery and Reconstruction
1869-1901 -C- The Gilded Age
1901-1919 -L- The Progressive Era
1919-1931 -C- Republican Restoration
1931-1947 -L- The New Deal
1947-1962 -C- The Eisenhower Era
1962-1978 -L- Sixties Radicalism
1978-???? -C- Gilded Age II
*-L- is liberal, -C- is conservative

My question is which era are we currently in, he began the private interest era around 1978 and said that would last until about 1990 but the 1990s and 2000s were clearly still part of the private interest era. Maybe it's too early to tell but it seems the US is now entering a public purpose era with Occupy, LBGT activism, Ferguson/#BlackLivesMatter, ect. It might have begun in 2009 with Obama becoming president.

It really does not seem possible that Gilded Age II can be around for nearly four decades, but that seems to be what's happening, and we haven't yet left the era when the chieftains of both major political parties kneel at the feet of Big Money. 1978, however, may be a big too early of a start date. I would say 1981 at the earliest and 1986 as the latest. Some will argue for the former, as that was the year when Reagan set the tone of anti-unionism when he fired the air traffic controllers. Yet on a societal level the sea change didn't really come until the 1984-86 time frame with the arrival of the Yuppie culture and then the AIDS scare which killed of the so-called sexual revolution.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

It really does not seem possible that Gilded Age II can be around for nearly four decades, but that seems to be what's happening, and we haven't yet left the era when the chieftains of both major political parties kneel at the feet of Big Money. 1978, however, may be a big too early of a start date. I would say 1981 at the earliest and 1986 as the latest. Some will argue for the former, as that was the year when Reagan set the tone of anti-unionism when he fired the air traffic controllers. Yet on a societal level the sea change didn't really come until the 1984-86 time frame with the arrival of the Yuppie culture and then the AIDS scare which killed of the so-called sexual revolution.

It's not like FDR created the New Deal in one or even two terms. And to be fair, the Obama administration straddled a period of aftermath that during the Great Power Saec, was spanned by the end of Hoover and the beginning of FDR. Things are different from the way they were before 2008, full stop.

Obama's presidency is roughly equivalent to Hoovers term and FDR's First term rolled together. The Current Situation is Likely equivalent to about 1934/1935.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Obama's presidency is roughly equivalent to Hoovers term and FDR's First term rolled together. The Current Situation is Likely equivalent to about 1934/1935.

Yes, I agree with this assessment.

Originally Posted by Emman85

The historian Arthur Schlesinger found a pattern in US history somewhat similar to what Howe/Strauss formulated, the sociopolitical mood swings between what he called public purpose eras(or liberal eras) and private interests eras(or conservative eras). Public purpose eras roughly correspond to social moments and private interests to 1T/3Ts, he proposed that public purpose eras occur about every 30 years or so:







The eras he laid out.

1829-1841 -L- Jacksonian Democracy
1841-1861 -C- Domination of National Government by Slaveowners
1861-1869 -L- Abolition of Slavery and Reconstruction
1869-1901 -C- The Gilded Age
1901-1919 -L- The Progressive Era
1919-1931 -C- Republican Restoration
1931-1947 -L- The New Deal
1947-1962 -C- The Eisenhower Era
1962-1978 -L- Sixties Radicalism
1978-???? -C- Gilded Age II
*-L- is liberal, -C- is conservative

My question is which era are we currently in, he began the private interest era around 1978 and said that would last until about 1990 but the 1990s and 2000s were clearly still part of the private interest era. Maybe it's too early to tell but it seems the US is now entering a public purpose era with Occupy, LBGT activism, Ferguson/#BlackLivesMatter, ect. It might have begun in 2009 with Obama becoming president.

We all thought that when Clinton came in with a Democratic congress in 1993, that this was the next liberal era. He did get a few things done, and tax laws and credits were structured so that the middle class made a comeback in those years. So if we credit the Clinton era as liberal, then 1992 is the end of the C period where you place "????"

Obviously none of these periods are monolithic. Things actually run in decades, so the 2000s like the 1970s were not as liberal, but represented consolidation of government power, as did the 1940s and 1910s etc. This consolidation is often powered by war.

The Clinton era was blocked by Gingrich and then Dubya, and the Obama era (actually dominated by the Tea Party) falls under the C era, lasting until the next liberal era starts in about 2022. It's one of many cycles pointing to this.

The Schlesinger era is exactly equal to the 30-year Saturn cycle (one cycle of Saturn around the Sun), and the liberal decades are those in which Saturn goes through Aquarius and Pisces. Saturn represents The State.

But major conjunctions among the outer planets (especially with the "dwarf" but potent Pluto, planet of civilization and power) can shift the meaning of conservative and liberal, most notably in the early 1890s (Neptune conj. Pluto, meaning a new 500-year civilization cycle) when the Democrats became primarily a populist/labor party for the first time instead of an agrarian southern party, and the Republicans became the party of business even more than before. In the mid-1960s (Uranus conj. Pluto, revolution cycle begins), Democrats completed this change by dumping the racists.

So before 1892, liberal also meant what we call today neo-liberal; decades like the 1770s, 1800s, 1830s and 1860s were "liberal," but now have become the conservative decades (1890s, 1920s, 1950s, 1980s, 2010s) dominated by trickle-down economics foisted upon us by Republican presidents (McKinley, Coolidge, Eisenhower, Reagan), and in our current case by the Tea Party congress. But of course, they still use liberal slogans to deceive us.

The 1993 conjunction of Uranus and Neptune might have also thrown a monkey wrench into this cycle. Perhaps congress is becoming more important and decisive. The presidency itself could be under attack in the 2020s. But I also look at the recent square of Uranus to Pluto (with Saturn in circa 2010) that was identical to the Depression era, as facilitating the brief liberal era of Obama and the mildly-Democratic congress in 2009.

LESSON: There's always more than one cycle going on. The Saeculum isn't the only one! The Schlesinger cycle has validity, and is confirmed by the Saturn cycle.

Naturally, I wrote articles about this and it's mentioned in my book.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We all thought that when Clinton came in with a Democratic congress in 1993, that this was the next liberal era. He did get a few things done, and tax laws and credits were structured so that the middle class made a comeback in those years. So if we credit the Clinton era as liberal, then 1992 is the end of the C period where you place "????"

But the '90s weren't a public purpose era, very far from it, it was very clearly a private interest era in the same vein as the 1980s, Clinton was more centrist. Even Schlesinger himself said the public purpose era he thought would start around 1993 don't come, he said the 1960s was so disruptive that the private interest era might last longer than expected(as is the case with the 35 year long Gilded age). Public purpose eras are notably socially activist too, whether it is the 1900s Progressive era, "The Red Decade" of the 1930s, or the New Left 1960s. OWS, Obama's presidency, massive LBGT gains, national protests over police brutality, ect seem way more indicative of a public purpose era, it's very hard to believe the 2010s are a conservative anywhere near the same vein as the 1920s, 1950s or 1980s. The 2010s decade strikes me as a liberal one in spirit and it's largely Millennials that seem to be driving it.

The 1890s don't exactly fit the model either to me, there was huge populist uprisings and labor radicalism along with the domination of trusts and "robber barons", much social activism in that decade.

I do believe though that in the 2020s much more progress will be accomplished, the Republicans do seem to be holding up a lot of progress(which is why we are still institutionally gridlocked) but the winds of change is very clearly against them.

Originally Posted by Emman85

But the '90s weren't a public purpose era, very far from it, it was very clearly a private interest era in the same vein as the 1980s, Clinton was more centrist. Even Schlesinger himself said the public purpose era he thought would start around 1993 don't come, he said the 1960s was so disruptive that the private interest era might last longer than expected(as is the case with the 35 year long Gilded age). Public purpose eras are notably socially activist too, whether it is the 1900s Progressive era, "The Red Decade" of the 1930s, or the New Left 1960s. OWS, Obama's presidency, massive LBGT gains, national protests over police brutality, ect seem way more indicative of a public purpose era, it's very hard to believe the 2010s are a conservative anywhere near the same vein as the 1920s, 1950s or 1980s. The 2010s decade strikes me as a liberal one in spirit and it's largely Millennials that seem to be driving it.

Well that, except for a few things like Obamacare in 2009, liberal intiatives have been blocked, and movements such as OWS have been singularly ineffective and mis-directed. Well, except that Republicans took over the congress, legislatures, governors and courts and have gerrymandered their way into power with practically no opposition to this method. Where's your "public purpose" when no-one (even here) utters a peep against gerrymandering, which is entirely responsible for this gridlock? People can't seem to even see what's happening. Well, except that the "driving" millennials couldn't seem to drive themselves to the voting booth when it counted, in 2010, 2012 (except for some who voted only for Obama) and 2014. The Tea Party Movement controls the government, and they are the most conservative politicians ever elected. And they will stay in power for the rest of the decade, thanks to the inaction of millennials. People don't seem to be willing to vote for the public purpose. Who's in power is the main consideration when it comes to this 30-year cycle. And in these times, progressive people run away from and poopoo things like voting and the need to support the Democratic Party. They can't put their quarrels aside and unite to win.

I can see your points though, and again, remember there's more than one cycle going on, and cycles aren't monolithic. This is a 4T; the order of the Establishment is breaking down. The Great Depression almost returned, right on cue, and this brought some public purpose, if only very briefly. There has been very little of it through the 2010s in America, though revolutions broke out elsewhere. It is true that the 1993 instance of the liberal cycle was mild, just as Eisenhower was a mild conservative in 1953. But remember that the middle class gained in the Clinton era because of his policies; it worked for the people. And Clinton did pass some gun control, which was a VERY significant liberal accomplishment. Obama couldn't do half as much.

The 1890s don't exactly fit the model either to me, there was huge populist uprisings and labor radicalism along with the domination of trusts and "robber barons", much social activism in that decade.

Well, what would you expect when Neptune and Pluto are in conjunction? Of course! But the populists only succeeded in taking over the Democratic Party, which would rule another day. In the 1890s, it was the conservatives Cleveland and McKinley who made policy, and McKinley was the direct forerunner of Coolidge and Reagan in every respect. The trusts and robber barons, as you said, continued to dominate in the 1890s under their patronage. They came out of the 1893 Panic even stronger, despite all the loud protests. But the 1900s followed, and the progressive movement and more progressive leaders took over then.

I do believe though that in the 2020s much more progress will be accomplished, the Republicans do seem to be holding up a lot of progress(which is why we are still institutionally gridlocked) but the winds of change is very clearly against them.

Indeed, and I think the Schlesinger Cycle will come back into noticeable effect; this time buttressed by several other important cycles coalescing, not the least being the climax of a 4T.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...
The Schlesinger era is exactly equal to the 30-year Saturn cycle (one cycle of Saturn around the Sun), and the liberal decades are those in which Saturn goes through Aquarius and Pisces. Saturn represents The State.

Yes, that explains a lot, Eric. Shillery and Shrub redux = all wet, fishy leading candidates. Saturn also represents those 2 losers since its core is a dense core of metallic hydrogen. Saturn's rings are mostly rocks and dust which proves said candidates have rocks in their heads.

LESSON: There's always more than one cycle going on. The Saeculum isn't the only one! The Schlesinger cycle has validity, and is confirmed by the Saturn cycle.

Oh, you bet. There's also the smart/stupid cycle. Last smart cycle was the 1930's-1970's for the most part, sans LBJ , then stupid cycle from 1981-current. Looks like this one be 40 years, next smart era should be about 2021.

Originally Posted by eric

Naturally, I wrote articles about this and it's mentioned in my book.

I guess. Have you added that there's got to be a planet someplace in the Milky Way that's got a 40 year orbit?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well that, except for a few things like Obamacare in 2009, liberal intiatives have been blocked, and movements such as OWS have been singularly ineffective and mis-directed. Well, except that Republicans took over the congress, legislatures, governors and courts and have gerrymandered their way into power with practically no opposition to this method. Where's your "public purpose" when no-one (even here) utters a peep against gerrymandering, which is entirely responsible for this gridlock? People can't seem to even see what's happening. Well, except that the "driving" millennials couldn't seem to drive themselves to the voting booth when it counted, in 2010, 2012 (except for some who voted only for Obama) and 2014. The Tea Party Movement controls the government, and they are the most conservative politicians ever elected. And they will stay in power for the rest of the decade, thanks to the inaction of millennials. People don't seem to be willing to vote for the public purpose. Who's in power is the main consideration when it comes to this 30-year cycle. And in these times, progressive people run away from and poopoo things like voting and the need to support the Democratic Party. They can't put their quarrels aside and unite to win.

I still cannot see the 1990s as an era of public purpose, it was an era of private interest when considering the general public, I think that's what his theory is all about, the mood of society. That's why public purpose eras have a strong correlation with social moments, the Tea Party controlling congress says little about the mood of society to me. If we are in a private interest era we're near the very end of one, I don't see how it's possible it began around 2009(when the Tea Party gained prominence).

Obama ran has whole campaign on a very idealistic agenda of hope and change and that's what was reflected in the national mood in late 2008, US citizens were ready for full on public purpose and that's why he was elected in the first place, just because Obama has failed on his promises(and the Tea Party is stalling) doesn't mean the overall public mood has changed(from wanting public purpose), in fact it's grown even stronger since then. I think that's the important distinction, it's known in 4Ts that the supply of order is very low but the demand for order rises(which to me corresponds to a kind of 4T public purpose), that's what has been happening since '08, '09 in the US, the demand for reform is one the defining characteristics of the 2010s, whether it's the economy, income inequality, police reform, ect, there just seems be a resurgence of activism I've never seen in my lifetime.

Here's a quote that's interesting

It seems like there ought to have been a big liberal wave during Bill Clinton's Presidency, but there wasn't. Bill Clinton's health-care-reform efforts were a flop, and the anti-globalization movement never got very far. Bill Clinton was anything but the left-wing ogre that many right-wingers considered him.


The widespread enthusiasm for Barack Obama's candidacy suggested another progressive wave, but Obama has turned out to be a somewhat more successful version of Bill Clinton. But with revolts against Republican anti-union efforts in Wisconsin and elsewhere, and the rise of the Occupy movement, another liberal wave may be starting.

Originally Posted by Emman85

I still cannot see the 1990s as an era of public purpose, it was an era of private interest when considering the general public, I think that's what his theory is all about, the mood of society.

I concur. The 1990s were a sort of Indian summer, a heat wave by November standards. I thought that we might have a mild Crisis, one more defined by culture than by danger. But politicians and institutions can create a dangerous phase of history. All that we needed do was to avoid electing hacks as bad as Harding, Coolidge, or Hoover. We got Dubya, who telescoped the bad politics of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover from twelve years into eight years and for good measure lied America into a war that he bungled.


3Ts are conservative times in which institutional greed overpowers any pretense of reform. That's how the cycle works.

That's why public purpose eras have a strong correlation with social moments, the Tea Party controlling congress says little about the mood of society to me. If we are in a private interest era we're near the very end of one, I don't see how it's possible it began around 2009(when the Tea Party gained prominence).

Until I see the Tea Party and Koch stooges get taken down politically, any reforms of American life will be the imposition of a plutocratic oligarchy in which the duty of the common man is to suffer for the greed and indulgence of economic elites irrespective of the human cost in America or elsewhere. The masses will be offered a vile variant of Pascal's wager (suffer in This World for delights in the next -- never mind that those are unproved -- or simply suffer without an obvious purpose). The Right has forced institutional change to alter the political rules to their benefit through gerrymandering and front groups operating outside electoral scrutiny -- with the intention of putting moneyed elites in absolute and uncontested power.

We can now be in for the ugliest and most disastrous 4T in American history. The barbarians are not at the gate; they are in the executive suites, the mansions, corporate law firms, lobbying firms, and PR agencies. They want everything -- and they stand a chance of getting it. America can become the new Evil Empire. We take our democratic heritage back or we put the entire world at the risk of looking like Warsaw in 1945.

Obama ran has whole campaign on a very idealistic agenda of hope and change and that's what was reflected in the national mood in late 2008, US citizens were ready for full on public purpose and that's why he was elected in the first place, just because Obama has failed on his promises(and the Tea Party is stalling) doesn't mean the overall public mood has changed(from wanting public purpose), in fact it's grown even stronger since then. I think that's the important distinction, it's known in 4Ts that the supply of order is very low but the demand for order rises(which to me corresponds to a kind of 4T public purpose), that's what has been happening since '08, '09 in the US, the demand for reform is one the defining characteristics of the 2010s, whether it's the economy, income inequality, police reform, ect, there just seems be a resurgence of activism I've never seen in my lifetime.

We Americans need to relearn the art of strikes, demonstrations, and protests.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

All that we needed do was to avoid electing hacks as bad as Harding, Coolidge, or Hoover. We got Dubya, who telescoped the bad politics of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover from twelve years into eight years and for good measure lied America into a war that he bungled.

I wouldn't characterize Hoover as a hack. He was a good man in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

There's also the smart/stupid cycle. Last smart cycle was the 1930's-1970's for the most part, sans LBJ , then stupid cycle from 1981-current. Looks like this one be 40 years, next smart era should be about 2021.

...Have you added that there's got to be a planet someplace in the Milky Way that's got a 40 year orbit?[/COLOR]

You can use Uranus and divide by two = half a saeculum

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I wouldn't characterize Hoover as a hack. He was a good man in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Excellent point. Some are blind to the strong character of adversaries, and that's a mistake we should try to avoid. You can oppose someone's ideas, and still value the person.

According to a French scholar named Benoit d'andrimont who claims to have decoded Nostradamus. There are supposed to be renewed 9/11 type terror attacks starting around 2018/2019 in conjunction with a large scale war in the middle east beginning around that time. This war escalates by spreading into Europe starting around 2025 and continuing to about about 2035. There is also supposed to be an even more severe world war between 2066 to 2084 with the years 2069, 2075, and 2076 particularly important. Several regional wars he predicts are supposed to occur in 2055 and in 2105. There is supposed to be a major religious reformation starting around 2120 and culminating in the 2140s. A particularly severe world war is supposed to occur around 2165 according to the author.

Originally Posted by Emman85

I still cannot see the 1990s as an era of public purpose, it was an era of private interest when considering the general public, I think that's what his theory is all about, the mood of society. That's why public purpose eras have a strong correlation with social moments, the Tea Party controlling congress says little about the mood of society to me. If we are in a private interest era we're near the very end of one, I don't see how it's possible it began around 2009(when the Tea Party gained prominence).

But when Clinton came in Schlesinger was leading the pack saying "see, this fulfills the cycle!" I remember the graphic in which FDR's picture morphed into Kennedy's and then into Clinton's. No need to repeat my points about Clinton though; I think they stand. It was harder in a 3T for as much of the progressive social agendas to get done than in a 4T (FDR) or a budding 2T (Kennedy-Johnson).

Obama ran has whole campaign on a very idealistic agenda of hope and change and that's what was reflected in the national mood in late 2008, US citizens were ready for full on public purpose and that's why he was elected in the first place, just because Obama has failed on his promises(and the Tea Party is stalling) doesn't mean the overall public mood has changed(from wanting public purpose), in fact it's grown even stronger since then. I think that's the important distinction, it's known in 4Ts that the supply of order is very low but the demand for order rises(which to me corresponds to a kind of 4T public purpose), that's what has been happening since '08, '09 in the US, the demand for reform is one the defining characteristics of the 2010s, whether it's the economy, income inequality, police reform, ect, there just seems be a resurgence of activism I've never seen in my lifetime.

Clinton's campaign was equally idealistic, and represented the hope of the boomer generation. But as with them, the new Obama mood among millennials fizzled at the voting booth after 2008. Such a mood soured as soon as it began, and the public mood was soon dominated by the Tea Party, who rule over us now. Our civic generation doesn't even see the need to abolish gerrymandering! Why aren't they fighting mad about this and doing something about it? They don't know where the levers of power are in our system! Some public purpose and civic virtue; NOT!

But, remember there's more than one cycle going on, always, and I mentioned this before. Yes, the 4T is ramping up, and it's due to climax in the mid-2020s; even despite the apparent fact that we are in a conservative phase of the Schlesinger cycle. Often a longer cycle can take precedence over a shorter one. So yes, things are ramping up, but you need to distinguish between the different cycles in play to see things accurately. You can't attribute the Schlesinger cycle to the Saeculum; they are two different cycles, and related cosmically to two different planets. At the least, astrology helps us to distinguish among the cycles that are in effect. The reason the 2020s look so promising for an era of reform and activism is that these two cycles as well as others will be coalescing.

Here's a quote that's interesting

Those revolts fizzled because millennials don't yet recognize that activism must be directed toward political change in order to have any effect. Shouting and demonstrating is not enough. So, there's no public purpose yet, because our "civic" generation has not yet learned public or civic virtue. We can hope they will by next decade! At least the Ferguson city council started to change. Maybe that's a small sign of things to come.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I wouldn't characterize Hoover as a hack. He was a good man in the wrong place at the wrong time.

He was a smart, honest, well-intentioned person horribly unsuited to be President. He had no experience in elected politics, and he used a business model for the Presidency. Government is not a business and cannot be run like one.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

He was a smart, honest, well-intentioned person horribly unsuited to be President. He had no experience in elected politics, and he used a business model for the Presidency. Government is not a business and cannot be run like one.

Which is a recap of what I said.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Obama's presidency is roughly equivalent to Hoovers term and FDR's First term rolled together. The Current Situation is Likely equivalent to about 1934/1935.

Just a bit later actually. Using the K-cycle as an approximation for the saeculum gives 1933=2009. This expansion is longer so I would put us at 1936 or 1937. This is economically.

Politically the last 4T is not a good model. FDR's timing was very good, the stock market bottomed in summer 1932, 8 months BEFORE he became president, Unemployment levle rose above the level at his inauguration rose almost immediately. Regan was similarly lucky in his timing, as was Bill Clinton. In contrast Jimmy Carter and Bush 41 had sucky timing. How are they remembered by their own parties, compared to FDR, Reagan and Clinton?

Obama's timing was terrible. He became president two months BEFORE the market bottomed. Recovery to the unemployment level at his inaugural took years. Obama got a lot of Hoover's hand (not all--GW Bush got a bit of it whcih is why his brother has been skittish about running).

So in terms of economic-related politics Obama is pretty much like Hoover--except he ws able to do FDR-like stuff on his first two years. So he is kinda of hybrid, as you observed.

The future is murky (go figure). Do we reset, and elect a president from the other party? Or does a Democrat become president? In the former case I see us repeating the last Schlesinger cycle with Obama=Nixon/Ford and the next pres as a Republican Carter. In the latter case I don't have an analogy. Closest analogous situation would be if their had been no Watergate, no Nixon resignation and Reagan had won the presidency in 1976. But as this did not happen we have no idea what that would be like. My gut feeling is Democrats will win in 2016, although things would be cleaner with a GOP win. But things never work out cleanly, life is always messy.