Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We are 1850s redux. We hit the iceberg. We cannot enter a civil war yet. For now, the "Crisis" consists of polarization and stalemate. You are right about the shape of current events you describe. I am just offering an explanation in terms of turnings that I think works. Fix the anomaly, and the turnings theory works just fine to explain where we are.

If the crisis consists of polarization and stalemate, I suppose you have a guitar that is made up of a bass drum, a snare, a tom and several cymbal stands?

At the moment I value the language S&H developed to describe where a culture is at more than I value the theory of a fixed clockwork high, awakening, unravelling crisis pattern. I would like to keep the language intact and meaningful. It bothers me greatly, if in order to keep the four cycle clockwork anomaly free, the language has to be distorted and warped. It would bother me more to ignore reality to keep a theory intact rather than modifying the theory to match reality.

The reality is that we need a catalyst or two and maybe a trigger to kick things going. That tells me where we are in the cycle.

The four cycle sequence has worked pretty well for Anglo American Civilization during the Industrial Age. 2001 and the Bush 43 years seem to me to reflect a backfire, a failed 4T followed by a reset to unravelling mood and politics. If one wants to pretend that the four cycle pattern is intact and unblemished, one can assert that the Bush 43 years were unimportant, just ho hum boring 3T. I'd rather say it was the first security related half of a possible double crisis, with a potential second economic half yet to come... maybe.

But I've been saying this for years. It was very very popular to yell trigger and crisis in the aftermath of September 11th. It became less popular when the intense "stay the course" vs. "cut and run" debate ended with a nuanced middle ground rather than triumph by either the Blue or Red. I'm sticking with the crisis interpretation, though I know it is unpopular here.

Still, on September 12th 2001, when Bush 43 announced he intended a military response rather than evaluating and addressing underlying causes of the conflict, I knew we were in trouble and said so. That early I thought Bush 43's 4T would fail.

[QUOTE=B Butler;528029]I'm not sure that it will be a financial cataclysm. If Bush 43 didn't manage to derail the economy to the point that it couldn't be gotten back on course with band aids and really intense wishful thinking, will we see a bigger idiot? [QUOTE]

-- well, dubya's brother's running.....

Originally Posted by marypoza

Originally Posted by B Butler

I'm not sure that it will be a financial cataclysm. If Bush 43 didn't manage to derail the economy to the point that it couldn't be gotten back on course with band aids and really intense wishful thinking, will we see a bigger idiot?

-- well, dubya's brother's running.....

Well.... I don't know...

He doesn't quite have that same "deer in the headlights" look.

Originally Posted by B Butler

If the crisis consists of polarization and stalemate, I suppose you have a guitar that is made up of a bass drum, a snare, a tom and several cymbal stands?

Why can't a crisis consist of a stalemate?

That is what is the danger to our country. This is not an uncommon opinion among those knowledgeable people who study and comment on our times. Our country is in crisis because of our polarization, created largely by the right-wing ideology. And it's a repeating pattern, since it happened at least once before; so it works to modify the theory to fit that reality.

At the moment I value the language S&H developed to describe where a culture is at more than I value the theory of a fixed clockwork high, awakening, unravelling crisis pattern. I would like to keep the language intact and meaningful. It bothers me greatly, if in order to keep the four cycle clockwork anomaly free, the language has to be distorted and warped. It would bother me more to ignore reality to keep a theory intact rather than modifying the theory to match reality.

The reality is that we need a catalyst or two and maybe a trigger to kick things going. That tells me where we are in the cycle.

The only way "things will get going" in this 4T, is when the polarization gets so intense that we will have to fight it out. We are stuck; one side needs to be defeated. That is what the crisis is. When the breakthrough happens, this 4T will be just about over. It is not movement toward solution of problems. That movement will happen fast and automatically once the stalemate is broken, and will extend into the 1T. And this is the same pattern as the 1850s and 60s. The "anomaly" is actually an inherent part of the pattern. It's a domestic-centered, more than foreign-centered 4T, even though there are foreign challenges too.

The four cycle sequence has worked pretty well for Anglo American Civilization during the Industrial Age. 2001 and the Bush 43 years seem to me to reflect a backfire, a failed 4T followed by a reset to unravelling mood and politics. If one wants to pretend that the four cycle pattern is intact and unblemished, one can assert that the Bush 43 years were unimportant, just ho hum boring 3T. I'd rather say it was the first security related half of a possible double crisis, with a potential second economic half yet to come... maybe.

It usually happens the other way around. We will find that this is also true of this 4T, I predict.

But I've been saying this for years. It was very very popular to yell trigger and crisis in the aftermath of September 11th. It became less popular when the intense "stay the course" vs. "cut and run" debate ended with a nuanced middle ground rather than triumph by either the Blue or Red. I'm sticking with the crisis interpretation, though I know it is unpopular here.

Yeah, I'd rather not

Still, on September 12th 2001, when Bush 43 announced he intended a military response rather than evaluating and addressing underlying causes of the conflict, I knew we were in trouble and said so. That early I thought Bush 43's 4T would fail.

Yes, his response was misguided. There was no security crisis to begin with; it was manufactured, certainly in the case of the Iraq War, although some kind of response was needed to catch the criminals who did 9-11. But the response in Afghanistan was wrong and incompetent too. All that was an indication that his administration and everything it did was a cause of a crisis to come, rather than a response to a crisis. It was 3T, and not at all 4T.

No, it deserves no legitimacy whatever. Bush 43 was a failure, pure and simple. The worst president in our history; he was the immediate cause of the specific foreign and economic problems of the current 4T. That is not hate; that is realism. He's a nice guy; just the wrong guy for the job.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

The coming collapse will likely be a one two punch. The first blow will be economic, all that is rotten with the current processes and system cresting and smashing into the shoreline.

It won't happen. We already had the collapse. We survived, because we learned a thing or two from last time (1929). If we had not learned from 1929, 2008 would have been even worse than 1929. It was THAT serious.

So, we are in stalemate, because further solutions are automatically blocked by our system and the ideologies of its participants. Nothing can get done, unless by the Courts or the President. This will prove more and more unsatisfactory because, whether another collapse happens or not, people will fear one, both economic and ecological; they are also fed up with the slow recovery and continued unequal lifestyle of the 1% grabbing all the wealth.

So, we are headed toward some kind of revolution or civil war during this 4T. It will approach steadily and unflaggingly; increasing year by year. It may not be as intense as the previous civil war. But it will be enough to break the stalemate. And that will almost be the end of the Crisis. The reforms we need will pass swiftly, in the blink of an eye, once the logjam is broken, just like the 13th and 14th amendments did. We may even see "radical rule" in the early 1T like last time (the late 1860s).

Then, shortly after that, the final whimper of the post-WW2 order (including the UN and all the other fancy multilateral institutions). NATO may survive in a new format, essentially an unabashed Pro-Western Anglo-American-Nordic Alliance.

Mid-eastern and Russian misbehaviors will have to be dealt with. What will the post 4T look like in that respect? Perhaps more progress toward the inevitable global federation that is the real meaning of our civilization today-- but one that takes account of cultural and economic differences and allows more local and state sovereignty too, rather than a monolithic one world order.

I think for NATO to survive, it will have to grow larger to encompass more nations, until it becomes indistinguishable from the UN. Otherwise, perhaps it needs to be disbanded. The East-West conflict needs to end though. It already has. Putin is just a temporary derailment of the longer term trend of history.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Why can't a crisis consist of a stalemate?

There is a stalemate before every crisis. This is the unravelling period. When the stalemate ends, when the problems are being seriously addressed, that's the crisis period.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So, we are in stalemate, because further solutions are automatically blocked by our system and the ideologies of its participants. Nothing can get done, unless by the Courts or the President. This will prove more and more unsatisfactory because, whether another collapse happens or not, people will fear one, both economic and ecological; they are also fed up with the slow recovery and continued unequal lifestyle of the 1% grabbing all the wealth.

So, we are headed toward some kind of revolution or civil war during this 4T. It will approach steadily and unflaggingly; increasing year by year. It may not be as intense as the previous civil war. But it will be enough to break the stalemate. And that will almost be the end of the Crisis. The reforms we need will pass swiftly, in the blink of an eye, once the logjam is broken, just like the 13th and 14th amendments did. We may even see "radical rule" in the early 1T like last time (the late 1860s).

I'm dubious about a revolution or civil war in the near future. I'm still not seeing a spiral of rhetoric that is leading towards a spiral of violence. After both the Oklahoma City and September 11th incidents there was a broad rejection of violence as a tool for promoting domestic political change. This seems to be holding as a strong feeling amongst the vast majority. In prior late 3Ts when there have been violent catalyst events the proper response to a violent incident was a larger violent incident directed at the perpetrator's community. That's the nature of a spiral. The violence escalates as each side tries to out do the other.

We've had more than our share of recent violent incidents recently that might be tied to politics. The recent shooting by an immigrant. Police using excessive force agains blacks. The church shooting in Charleston. These seem to be more 'lone nut' incidents rather than organized violence. The only recent rhetoric I can remember that encouraged retaliation and escalation was after the cops interrupted the biker gang battle down in Texas. The gangs talked about continuing the gang war and going after cops. Still, that one is hard to link to a major political issue. Nothing much came of it, at least as reported in the national press.

This isn't to say rhetoric couldn't start turning violent and lead to a spiral. That's possible. I just don't see that the process has started yet. How long did it take the Sons of Liberty in Boston or John Brown with Bleeding Kansas and Harper's Ferry to escalate things up to full scale violence? It takes a while.

Somehow, I don't anticipate you buying a gun and hunting down the one percent. A bunch of people deciding that this would be a good idea is the sort of thing I'd anticipate before a civil war or revolution.

Originally Posted by B Butler

There is a stalemate before every crisis. This is the unravelling period. When the stalemate ends, when the problems are being seriously addressed, that's the crisis period.

... assuming they do get addressed of course. There is no ironclad rule that makes that a mandatory thing. It's very possible to have a crisis that grinds on and on, but never grows large enough to trigger a mass response. And don't discount the effect that slow escalation can have, and not just on frogs.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I'm dubious about a revolution or civil war in the near future. I'm still not seeing a spiral of rhetoric that is leading towards a spiral of violence. After both the Oklahoma City and September 11th incidents there was a broad rejection of violence as a tool for promoting domestic political change. This seems to be holding as a strong feeling amongst the vast majority. In prior late 3Ts when there have been violent catalyst events the proper response to a violent incident was a larger violent incident directed at the perpetrator's community. That's the nature of a spiral. The violence escalates as each side tries to out do the other.

We've had more than our share of recent violent incidents recently that might be tied to politics. The recent shooting by an immigrant. Police using excessive force agains blacks. The church shooting in Charleston. These seem to be more 'lone nut' incidents rather than organized violence. The only recent rhetoric I can remember that encouraged retaliation and escalation was after the cops interrupted the biker gang battle down in Texas. The gangs talked about continuing the gang war and going after cops. Still, that one is hard to link to a major political issue. Nothing much came of it, at least as reported in the national press.

This isn't to say rhetoric couldn't start turning violent and lead to a spiral. That's possible. I just don't see that the process has started yet. How long did it take the Sons of Liberty in Boston or John Brown with Bleeding Kansas and Harper's Ferry to escalate things up to full scale violence? It takes a while.

Somehow, I don't anticipate you buying a gun and hunting down the one percent. A bunch of people deciding that this would be a good idea is the sort of thing I'd anticipate before a civil war or revolution.

I don't see it happening, because we all seem resigned to the ongoing screwing we're oddly willing to take. It's a case of mas distraction. Maybe the Millies need to have the wireless system crash en masse. That would get their attention. The rest of us, maybe not so much.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I'm dubious about a revolution or civil war in the near future. I'm still not seeing a spiral of rhetoric that is leading towards a spiral of violence. After both the Oklahoma City and September 11th incidents there was a broad rejection of violence as a tool for promoting domestic political change. This seems to be holding as a strong feeling amongst the vast majority. In prior late 3Ts when there have been violent catalyst events the proper response to a violent incident was a larger violent incident directed at the perpetrator's community. That's the nature of a spiral. The violence escalates as each side tries to out do the other.

We've had more than our share of recent violent incidents recently that might be tied to politics. The recent shooting by an immigrant. Police using excessive force agains blacks. The church shooting in Charleston. These seem to be more 'lone nut' incidents rather than organized violence. The only recent rhetoric I can remember that encouraged retaliation and escalation was after the cops interrupted the biker gang battle down in Texas. The gangs talked about continuing the gang war and going after cops. Still, that one is hard to link to a major political issue. Nothing much came of it, at least as reported in the national press.

This isn't to say rhetoric couldn't start turning violent and lead to a spiral. That's possible. I just don't see that the process has started yet. How long did it take the Sons of Liberty in Boston or John Brown with Bleeding Kansas and Harper's Ferry to escalate things up to full scale violence? It takes a while.

Somehow, I don't anticipate you buying a gun and hunting down the one percent. A bunch of people deciding that this would be a good idea is the sort of thing I'd anticipate before a civil war or revolution.

My sentiments exactly. All of the work done by academics on the events leading up to civil war/ethnic conflicts, as well as historical examples like the ones you mentioned, are absent in the US today. There have, OTOH, been violent clashes and escalating rhetoric along the fringes of our empire with Russia (furthest along), China (getting closer), and various Middle Eastern actors ('nuff said). All of which leads me to believe that,

I don't see it happening, because we all seem resigned to the ongoing screwing we're oddly willing to take. It's a case of mas distraction. Maybe the Millies need to have the wireless system crash en masse. That would get their attention. The rest of us, maybe not so much.

the overthrow of the financial elite and the end of our continuing conflicts overseas, ie the end of the empire, is going to be spearheaded by foreign actors and not a domestic uprising.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

the overthrow of the financial elite and the end of our continuing conflicts overseas, ie the end of the empire, is going to be spearheaded by foreign actors and not a domestic uprising.

I think it likely that these foreign actors will likely find many Americans willing to work as a fifth column too.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I think it likely that these foreign actors will likely find many Americans willing to work as a fifth column too.

Entirely possible (to a limited extent almost certain, as is true in any conflict). The extent to which this plays a role and how depends on the exact form events take.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

... assuming they do get addressed of course. There is no ironclad rule that makes that a mandatory thing. It's very possible to have a crisis that grinds on and on, but never grows large enough to trigger a mass response. And don't discount the effect that slow escalation can have, and not just on frogs.

I would describe such a situation differently, of course. A mass response is called a crisis. If problems are not being addressed for an indefinitely long time, things slowly growing worse through inaction and futile debate, this would be an extended unravelling.

You are correct that there is no fixed rule that holds widely across all times and places. Certainly old Agricultural Age cultures could go on for lengthy periods of time essentially unchanged, no unravelling, no crisis. However, S&H's four cycle pattern did hold rather well for Anglo American civilization during the Industrial Age. Do you have an example or two in mind for an extended unravelling?

I can suggest a couple of extended crises. China moved from disaster to disaster from the Opium Wars until the death of Mao. I might not call that a single crisis. It was a whole string of crises running back to back. France around the time of their Revolution had a similar if shorter string of rough times. They kept shifting forms of government, trying to find something stable, peaceful and prosperous, and failing to really get their act together until after Waterloo. The United States has been comparatively fortunate. The Grey Champion's faction that takes charge at crisis start has been able to get it right, at least until Bush 43.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I'm dubious about a revolution or civil war in the near future. I'm still not seeing a spiral of rhetoric that is leading towards a spiral of violence. After both the Oklahoma City and September 11th incidents there was a broad rejection of violence as a tool for promoting domestic political change. This seems to be holding as a strong feeling amongst the vast majority. In prior late 3Ts when there have been violent catalyst events the proper response to a violent incident was a larger violent incident directed at the perpetrator's community. That's the nature of a spiral. The violence escalates as each side tries to out do the other.

We've had more than our share of recent violent incidents recently that might be tied to politics. The recent shooting by an immigrant. Police using excessive force against blacks. The church shooting in Charleston. These seem to be more 'lone nut' incidents rather than organized violence. The only recent rhetoric I can remember that encouraged retaliation and escalation was after the cops interrupted the biker gang battle down in Texas. The gangs talked about continuing the gang war and going after cops. Still, that one is hard to link to a major political issue. Nothing much came of it, at least as reported in the national press.

This isn't to say rhetoric couldn't start turning violent and lead to a spiral. That's possible. I just don't see that the process has started yet. How long did it take the Sons of Liberty in Boston or John Brown with Bleeding Kansas and Harper's Ferry to escalate things up to full scale violence? It takes a while.

Just as it took a while between 1850 and 1860. I don't anticipate a full-scale civil war; more likely some outbreaks that the government has to put down. But, things will get more intense. I see a fortunate outcome anyway.

Somehow, I don't anticipate you buying a gun and hunting down the one percent. A bunch of people deciding that this would be a good idea is the sort of thing I'd anticipate before a civil war or revolution.

It's far more likely that the gun fanatics will react violently to gun control laws and taxes being passed. And although I won't be buying a gun to hunt down the 1%, there may be some militant actions that accompany the breakdown of the current stalemate, and the racial incidents of today may be early signs of this.

Originally Posted by B Butler

There is a stalemate before every crisis. This is the unravelling period. When the stalemate ends, when the problems are being seriously addressed, that's the crisis period.

Well, except for the 1850s stalemate, of which our time is a repeat, complete with the same "anomaly."

And "seriously addressed" usually means two sides at each others' violent throats, and there's a fight. Only at the end of the fight, are most problems seriously addressed by the winners. In our time, two sides are also at each others' throats, but not, generally speaking, violent-- yet.

If anything, the New Deal was also a bit of an anomaly; a lot more "problem solving" than usual only 4 years into the crisis-- except, of course, the problems (though they were "addressed") were not solved until the end of the 4T-- as always.

A 3T is not a stalemate; it is a time of neglect, and sometimes (toward the end) increasing concern.

Indeed, Eric is actually right on this one. It's not at all unheard of for a Fourth Turning to consist primarily of fractious debate and political stalemate.

Consider the Glorious Revolution for the best example, which is of course part of the Saeculum most proponents of Mega-Theory compare to our own. William of Orange's invasion of mainland Britain and Scotland were quite late in that Turning, which also featured no immediately apparent "Regeneracy" of note. It was full of contentious religious debate, and to a degree that the invasion only suppressed the debate - England was by no means united sympathetically around William the way they were around Churchill in the Second World War, or Americans around Roosevelt. And, unsurprisingly, that Fourth Turning is considered part of a MegaUnraveling.

My guess is that MegaSaecular Highs (the Civil War) and Unravelings (the Glorious Revolution and the Great Recession) feature internal Fourth Turnings which tend to be more divisive, and that MegaSaecular Crises (the American Revolution) and Awakenings (the Great Depression/the Second World War) tend to be more unifying.

And these for different reasons: MegaSaecular First Turning Crises are divisive because the culture is new and can go anywhere; MegaSaecular Third Turning Crises are divisive because the culture is old and can't go anywhere. MegaSaecular Second Turning Crises are unifying because one worldview to emerge from it is particularly compelling; MegaSaecular Crises are unifying because the entire civilization risks destruction if victory isn't attained.

Originally Posted by Einzige

Consider the Glorious Revolution for the best example, which is of course part of the Saeculum most proponents of Mega-Theory compare to our own. William of Orange's invasion of mainland Britain and Scotland were quite late in that Turning, which also featured no immediately apparent "Regeneracy" of note. It was full of contentious religious debate, and to a degree that the invasion only suppressed the debate - England was by no means united sympathetically around William the way they were around Churchill in the Second World War, or Americans around Roosevelt. And, unsurprisingly, that Fourth Turning is considered part of a MegaUnraveling.

They way I have heard William's "invasion" described, it sounded more like a victory parade than an invasion. With all the religious talking going on, it actually sounds as much like an awakening as a crisis. When you consider that as of now there is no sign of a domestic spiral of violence, the Glorious Revolution might well foreshadow where we're going. I could see us finally getting fed up with the current style of government and sending a very different bunch of politicians to Washington, without bloodshed, but with a large policy change intended and resulting. I think such a large change would require some sort of catalyst to push things over the edge, though.

But the arrival of William and Mary followed by the Bill of Rights could also be interpreted as a regeneracy, a new agenda being put in place followed by big time change and resolution. In this case the military action enabled the political change, though there was so little bloodshed things in no way resembled a typical crisis war.

The English Civil War seems to be the crisis war. The Glorious Awakening came only 17 years later. Timing wise, they couldn't both be crisis wars, and given the scale of the fighting, it wasn't the Glorious Awakening that was the crisis war. Thus, I am dubious about how well this era has been force fit into the S&H cycle pattern. Cromwell's excessive radical actions around the end of the Civil War made him unpopular. While he won on the battlefield, the kings ended up on the throne again in a reactionary backlash against radicals going too far. The Glorious Awakening in many ways is an undoing of the reactionary backlash, with the Parliamentary faction reestablishing their victory without actually repeating the bloodshed. Only 17 years later, people weren't really eager to start that all up again.

***

Again, I am more concerned that we label the mood of the country and nature of the politics correctly. I am less concerned with force fitting generation and turning boundaries in such a way to make the theory clockwork come out right. One adjusts the theory to fit the history rather than distorting one's understanding of history to make the theory seem better.

In many ways, it doesn't really matter where we draw the 4T boundary. Who is paying attention to us anyway? We are stagnated, going nowhere, waiting on a probably economic catalyst to kick large scale transformation going, and there really isn't much disagreement on the above. To me, we're waddling like a duck, swimming like a duck and quacking like a duck. If you want to declare we're a porcupine, what really do I care?

There was a victory parade - among Anglicans. The Catholic minority was as recalcitrant as ever; and these were far larger a group than comparable losing reactionary groups in unified Fourth Turnings - Old Right Republicans hostile to the New Deal, say. The Glorious Revolution was much more contentious, especially in Ireland, for obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It's far more likely that the gun fanatics will react violently to gun control laws and taxes being passed. And although I won't be buying a gun to hunt down the 1%, there may be some militant actions that accompany the breakdown of the current stalemate, and the racial incidents of today may be early signs of this.

I don't see significant changes in gun laws until after a hypothetical regeneracy puts Blue culture clearly in the congressional driver's seat. Thus, a spiral of violence built around gun issues leading up to a regeneracy is implausible. The regeneracy would have to happen first. After the regeneracy, the game could change big time.

At the moment I think the NRA is pushing a mild advantage. Conceal carry is still expanding in rural areas. The fallout from recent 2nd Amendment court cases is reducing the urban gun prohibition. At the national level there is still a burst of rhetoric after every violent incident, but no one is seriously pushing legislation. There are a few steps the prohibition advocates could reasonably take at the state level, but I haven't heard much about such legislation getting passed.

I think the difference between the lone actors we are seeing today and organized groups like the Sons of Liberty or John Brown's group significant. We tend to see the lone actors as unstable to insane losers. To a great degree I believe many of them are using political or racist excuses in attempting to fight personal demons.

But I wouldn't say you are totally wrong. The number of violent individual acts may well in some way reflect the frustrations and anger of society as a whole. Should such tensions continue to increase, organization would be the next step.

The step I'm watching for is a violent lone actor being declared a hero rather than a nut. Suppose someone managed to kill the Kokh brothers and a bunch of Blue media outlets declared this to be a great day for America. I would see such encouraging press coverage as likely to greatly increase the chance of a spiral of rhetoric and violence escalating. I could anticipate a significant increase in copycat loners and the beginnings of organization.

Not happening yet. I don't really anticipate it yet. Still, when I see the more fanatic members of the forum wistfully daydreaming about revolution and civil war, that sort of thing ought to be on their list of near future daydreams.

Originally Posted by B Butler

The English Civil War seems to be the crisis war. The Glorious Awakening came only 17 years later. Timing wise, they couldn't both be crisis wars, and given the scale of the fighting, it wasn't the Glorious Awakening that was the crisis war.

One the strengths of using several cycle systems is the explanatory power different systems offer. In terms of secular cycles the Civil war was an incident of state collapse, the state had gone bankrupt just before the war. The crisis era did not really end until the Glorious Revolution settled matters once and for all. The British state still runs under the arrangement set up then. Basically what was resolved was the relative power of the monarch and Parliament. Before 1642 the monarch was the dominate partner. After 1689, the monarch was the junior partner and enjoyed what ever power Parliament saw fit for him to have.

Thus, I am dubious about how well this era has been force fit into the S&H cycle pattern.

Yes the turnings are too short to encompass a lot of period of change. But the Civil War did not solve the problem. The Glorious Revolution did. Both of them are needed for the full story, but 47 years is too long to be one of four subdivisions of a 100-year saeculum, but it is fine as a similar subdivision of a 200 year secular cycle.

The Glorious Awakening in many ways is an undoing of the reactionary backlash, with the Parliamentary faction reestablishing their victory without actually repeating the bloodshed. Only 17 years later, people weren't really eager to start that all up again.

I would say it was more that they got the formula right this time. Parliament lost in 1649 when they ended up with a dictator who taxed them more than the King had. it went to show that parliament could not rule, you needed a monarch for that, but the monarch had to be limited so that he did not become a tyrant.

The morphology of Crisis eras lends itself to considerable flexibility, as it turns out: The climax of the American Revolution Crisis took place in the middle of the turning - even somewhat earlier than the chronological middle of it, instead of right near the end.

Similarly, history will record, with virtual unanimity, that the regeneracy of this 4T occurred in one week, in late June of 2015 - with the two SCOTUS decisions (on the ACA and same-sex marriage) and the Charleston shootings, which brung the Confederate flag a tumblin' down. Much later than about three years into the Crisis, no matter where you place the catalyst.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

One the strengths of using several cycle systems is the explanatory power different systems offer. In terms of secular cycles the Civil war was an incident of state collapse, the state had gone bankrupt just before the war. The crisis era did not really end until the Glorious Revolution settled matters once and for all. The British state still runs under the arrangement set up then. Basically what was resolved was the relative power of the monarch and Parliament. Before 1642 the monarch was the dominate partner. After 1689, the monarch was the junior partner and enjoyed what ever power Parliament saw fit for him to have.

Yes the turnings are too short to encompass a lot of period of change. But the Civil War did not solve the problem. The Glorious Revolution did. Both of them are needed for the full story, but 47 years is too long to be one of four subdivisions of a 100-year saeculum, but it is fine as a similar subdivision of a 200 year secular cycle.

I would say it was more that they got the formula right this time. Parliament lost in 1649 when they ended up with a dictator who taxed them more than the King had. it went to show that parliament could not rule, you needed a monarch for that, but the monarch had to be limited so that he did not become a tyrant.

This is a reasonable accounting of the time period.

I do believe the historical forces that generate cyclical patterns are real. They do not universally apply. One does not see perfect cycles in every time in every place. I believe Anglo American civilization fell into a nice pattern as there was a steady trend of improving technology pushing for change in government, economics and culture. During the English Civil War era, the Parliament was favoring elites controlling the developing small craft sector centered in London. The king favored the old rural agricultural economy. One can find such tensions between rival groups of elites in many Anglo American crises, enough that a case can be made that multiple crises are extensions of one another. (I can still recommend The Cousins' Wars, a book linking the English Civil War, American Revolution and American Civil Wars as extensions of a single conflict.)

Still, the forces that generate cyclical patterns are not the only forces in play. Shifting primary power from the king to the Parliament was a big deal. That game went into overtime. It happens. We shouldn't be shocked when it does. When a generally solid pattern gets out of whack for a while, we shouldn't be afraid to say things are out of whack.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

The morphology of Crisis eras lends itself to considerable flexibility, as it turns out: The climax of the American Revolution Crisis took place in the middle of the turning - even somewhat earlier than the chronological middle of it, instead of right near the end.

Similarly, history will record, with virtual unanimity, that the regeneracy of this 4T occurred in one week, in late June of 2015 - with the two SCOTUS decisions (on the ACA and same-sex marriage) and the Charleston shootings, which brung the Confederate flag a tumblin' down. Much later than about three years into the Crisis, no matter where you place the catalyst.

I would nitpick the language a bit. There can be many catalysts leading up to a regeneracy, but generally only one trigger that immediately precedes and literally triggers the regeneracy. Fort Sumpter and Pearl Harbor would be classic examples of triggers. September 11th had a similar effect in changing the national perception and mood and triggering strong military action.

You seem to be suggesting that we have had three near simultaneous catalysts that effectively act as a trigger. If so, the feel good attitude of that week will inevitably snowball into a decisively Blue White House and Congress elected next year? A decisive majority in both houses will enable transforming legislation in early 2017 as the new president and Congress take the reigns?

Prediction noted. If this is not what your are predicting, please clarify.

Even if you are square on correct, I don't know that the 3T 4T cusp point is clearly defined, or whether the regeneracy marker should be placed at the decisive event that shifted the mood or when the new Congress actually starts passing legislation. But that would be a question of definition rather than a question of what is happening.

While I'm ready to agree we've had a triple catalyst that could well be important, it is not clear to me that a Blue president and clear progressive majority in both houses of Congress are inevitable at this point. It is entirely within the ability of Bernie and Hillary to blow it, and shifting Congress doesn't seem inevitable either.

For entertainment value, I hope it's Sanders vs Trump.
It would be the best debate since Bentsen vs Quayle.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

For entertainment value, I hope it's Sanders vs Trump.
It would be the best debate since Bentsen vs Quayle.

That would be like Rowan and Martin, or Martin and Lewis; Smothers Brothers, etc.. One straight man and one comic.