Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

And yet the Glorious Revolution took place 13 years after the start of its 4T. Some people (myself included), start the Civil War 4T around 1850, leaving another long gap.

Well that does more than leaves a gap, it sort of swallows the preceding 3T. Also if you want to include the whole 1850-1860 "spiral of violence" leading up the Civil War 4T then shouldn't you also include the 1765-1773 spiral leading up to the Revolutionary War?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The millies didn't get anything productive from BHO because they didn't vote in midterms and congressional elections for a congress that would back him.

(I don't know how many times I have to say it).

You can't vote for a president and expect change. That's not how the system works. Millies need to become civics, and learn some civics.

If they vote for Sanders, even Sanders himself understands that they will also have to vote for a congress that backs him, or they will get nothing again.

This is true in total, but not by parts. People can vote once and expect change, even though the system will reject those expectations out of hand. Rational expectations are not mandatory.

Originally Posted by Odin

I think one issue is that Xers made apolitical cynicism cool and a lot of Millies lapped it up.

A reasonable conclusion.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

In the Revolutionary 4T, internal war broke just two years after the 4T began. In the Civil War 4T war broke out in the following year. Even in the peaceful Depression 4T one of the two party won a landslide election and gained control of the Executive and Legislature for the next 12 years.

Assuming a 4T start in 2008, we have seen divided government at the federal level and essential stasis for 5 of the 7 years in the 4T so far. At the state level the country has moved decisively against the party that won a sweeping victory in 2008. Yet the Republicans, who have gone from strength to strength at the state level, are frequently seen to be a party in trouble, even in danger of collapse. The disorder itself is a sign of a 4T. Perhaps the state collapse and formation of a new state for this 4T will be about the party/electoral system. It is very confusing.

This is all fine and well, but what if the ACW Crisis actually began a decade earlier? If so then, like today, the two sides pushed and pulled until the crisis erupted in full when passions rose high enough for caution to be thrown to the wind. None of what occurred in 1860-1 was any different than earlier attempts, except the degree of excess was high enough for the actions to be carried through. The vitriol was there for a long time.

I've never liked the abbreviated cycle S&H conjured for that saeculum. I seemed contrived to fit elements of their preferred model into the facts on the ground. If you loosen the model a bit, the anomaly isn't needed.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This is all fine and well, but what if the ACW Crisis actually began a decade earlier?

Jordan already brought up this point, see my response above.

Here is how generations would be worked out using the concepts I am playing with. There are three kinds of generations, cultural, political and recessive. Cultural gens are essentially prophets. They are formed by awakenings/cultural movements. I take the dates for the period (e.g. The Great Awakening 1730-60) and subtract 14 from the beginning and 24 from the end to get an "Awakening gen" born 1716-1736. Political generations are sort of like Heroes. The are defined by specific historical eras by subtracting 23. So there is a specific Civil War generation born over 1838-1854 created by the 1861-77 Civil War & Reconstruction era by subtracting 23. The different methods reflect the fact that political eras are different from cultural movements. Political eras are defined by policy. By the time new political concepts are able to affect policy the concepts are well known. Any elite starting out n their adult life (i.e. reached age 23) who might be interested in these concepts will be familiar with them and so will have adopted them into their worldview.

Cultural movement are different, they start out small and take time to catch on fire. Thus people who are past age 14 at the very beginning of the movement will likely not have their worldview affected by the (still small) new movement. For example the abolition movement began around 1821, but did not really start to catch on until the 1830's. People born before 1807 (1821-14) will have aged out of their worldview-forming period by the time the abolition movement "went viral". By the mid 1840's, when the movement had moved on to direct action and most people susceptible to its message already knew about it and so it stopped forming new abolitionist paradigms. And so the abolition generation is defined as 1807-1821.

Born	Name	Type	COA	Leadership	AL	Historical Era
1716-1731	Awakening	Cultural	1739-1754	1763-1778	47	Patriot Insurgency
1736-1753	Founder	Recessive	1759-1776	1784-1801	48	American New Nation
1753-1766	Liberty	Political	1776-1789	1802-1815	49	Age of Jefferson
1766-1778	Constitution	Recessive	1789-1801	1816-1828	50	Era of Good Feelings
1778-1793	Democratic-Repblican	Political	1801-1816	1830-1845	52	Age of Jackson
1793-1807	Compromise	Recessive	1816-1830	1846-1860	53	Sectionalism
1807-1821	Abolition Gen	Cultural	1830-1844	1861-1875	54	Civil War & Reconst
1821-1838	Gilded	Recessive	1844-1861	1879-1896	58	Gilded Age
1838-1854	Civil War	Political	1861-1877	1895-1911	57	Progressive Era
1854-1871	New Era	Recessive	1877-1894	1913-1930	59	New Era
1871-1894	Social Gospel	Cultural	1894-1917	1929-1952	58	New Deal
1894-1910	Lost	Recessive	1917-1933	1952-1968	58	American Great Power
1910-1923	Greatest	Political	1933-1946	1967-1980	57	Age of Stagflation
1923-1941	Silent	Recessive	1946-1964	1982-2004	59	Age of Reagan
1941-1956	Civil Rights Gen	Cultural	1964-1979	2005-2020	64	Age of Obama-Clinton
1956-1976	Evangelical	Cultural	1979-1999	2021-2041	65?

Recessive generations are simply the spaces between the cultural/political generations. In the table I simply added 23 and avg age of leaders (AL) to them to get COA periods and leadership periods for them.

The purpose for the table to to give approximate locations for proposed generations that can be used to develop a general mechanism for how a specific type of generation was created during the COA period and why that particular creation produced the particular outcome during the leadership era. I am interested in some sort of cultural evolution process that can be modeled in such a way that would allow a math model to be created that generated this cyclical history. The early models I played with a decade or so ago were lagged negative feed back models. Problem is I do not see evidence of consistent negative feedback here in the table above. For example the abolitionists, when they came to power sought to free the slaves,an objective entirely consistent with their world view picked up decades earlier. That their effort led to conflict follows from the fact that freeing slaves meant impoverishing their owners (if they were simply freed by edict) or the taxpayers (if tax money were to be used to compensate slave owners).

On the other hand the Great Society extension of the New Deal was done under the Lost who came of age during the conservative New Era. When in power this gen ended up acting in opposition to the policy of their formative years (that is they reacted against the accepted policy that helped defined their paradigm).

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Here is how generations would be worked out using the concepts I am playing with. There are three kinds of generations, cultural, political and recessive. Cultural gens are essentially prophets. They are formed by awakenings/cultural movements. I take the dates for the period (e.g. The Great Awakening 1730-60) and subtract 14 from the beginning and 24 from the end to get an "Awakening gen" born 1716-1736. Political generations are sort of like Heroes. The are defined by specific historical eras by subtracting 23. So there is a specific Civil War generation born over 1838-1854 created by the 1861-77 Civil War & Reconstruction era by subtracting 23. The different methods reflect the fact that political eras are different from cultural movements. Political eras are defined by policy. By the time new political concepts are able to affect policy the concepts are well known. Any elite starting out n their adult life (i.e. reached age 23) who might be interested in these concepts will be familiar with them and so will have adopted them into their worldview.

Cultural movement are different, they start out small and take time to catch on fire. Thus people who are past age 14 at the very beginning of the movement will likely not have their worldview affected by the (still small) new movement. For example the abolition movement began around 1821, but did not really start to catch on until the 1830's. People born before 1807 (1821-14) will have aged out of their worldview-forming period by the time the abolition movement "went viral". By the mid 1840's, when the movement had moved on to direct action and most people susceptible to its message already knew about it and so it stopped forming new abolitionist paradigms. And so the abolition generation is defined as 1807-1821.

Born	Name	Type	COA	Leadership	AL	Historical Era
1716-1731	Awakening	Cultural	1739-1754	1763-1778	47	Patriot Insurgency
1736-1753	Founder	Recessive	1759-1776	1784-1801	48	American New Nation
1753-1766	Liberty	Political	1776-1789	1802-1815	49	Age of Jefferson
1766-1778	Constitution	Recessive	1789-1801	1816-1828	50	Era of Good Feelings
1778-1793	Democratic-Repblican	Political	1801-1816	1830-1845	52	Age of Jackson
1793-1807	Compromise	Recessive	1816-1830	1846-1860	53	Sectionalism
1807-1821	Abolition Gen	Cultural	1830-1844	1861-1875	54	Civil War & Reconst
1821-1838	Gilded	Recessive	1844-1861	1879-1896	58	Gilded Age
1838-1854	Civil War	Political	1861-1877	1895-1911	57	Progressive Era
1854-1871	New Era	Recessive	1877-1894	1913-1930	59	New Era
1871-1894	Social Gospel	Cultural	1894-1917	1929-1952	58	New Deal
1894-1910	Lost	Recessive	1917-1933	1952-1968	58	American Great Power
1910-1923	Greatest	Political	1933-1946	1967-1980	57	Age of Stagflation
1923-1941	Silent	Recessive	1946-1964	1982-2004	59	Age of Reagan
1941-1956	Civil Rights Gen	Cultural	1964-1979	2005-2020	64	Age of Obama-Clinton
1956-1976	Evangelical	Cultural	1979-1999	2021-2041	65?

Recessive generations are simply the spaces between the cultural/political generations. In the table I simply added 23 and avg age of leaders (AL) to them to get COA periods and leadership periods for them.

The purpose for the table to to give approximate locations for proposed generations that can be used to develop a general mechanism for how a specific type of generation was created during the COA period and why that particular creation produced the particular outcome during the leadership era. I am interested in some sort of cultural evolution process that can be modeled in such a way that would allow a math model to be created that generated this cyclical history. The early models I played with a decade or so ago were lagged negative feed back models. Problem is I do not see evidence of consistent negative feedback here in the table above. For example the abolitionists, when they came to power sought to free the slaves,an objective entirely consistent with their world view picked up decades earlier. That their effort led to conflict follows from the fact that freeing slaves meant impoverishing their owners (if they were simply freed by edict) or the taxpayers (if tax money were to be used to compensate slave owners).

On the other hand the Great Society extension of the New Deal was done under the Lost who came of age during the conservative New Era. When in power this gen ended up acting in opposition to the policy of their formative years (that is they reacted against the accepted policy that helped defined their paradigm).

Okay. I'll consider this when I have a chance. One question though. I guess the Evangelical Gen. is actually a recessive one and the word cultural is a typo rather than two back to back and perhaps somewhat opposing cultural gens. butting heads with each other?

However, the idea of butting heads together fits these times a bit!

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Well that does more than leaves a gap, it sort of swallows the preceding 3T. Also if you want to include the whole 1850-1860 "spiral of violence" leading up the Civil War 4T then shouldn't you also include the 1765-1773 spiral leading up to the Revolutionary War?

It could be seen that way IMO. The problem is that turnings before the Revolution were seen by the T4T authors as longer. The saeculum leading to the Revolution (French, American, Industrial, Romantic) was the transition to the time when the people were allowed to participate in history, instead of just the elites. So the saeculum speeded up. Astrologically speaking, it speeded up to the movement of newly-discovered planet Uranus and its cycle of 84 years, which is the planet that represents modern times and revolutions of various and sundry kinds. That cycle and the positions of Uranus and Neptune in the zodiac would place the 1765-1773 period in a similar place as the 1850s and the 1930s, and today of course. Meanwhile, since half the USA had not emerged into the modern world of the revolution, the civil war saeculum was slowed down, and then was speeded up again because that half of the country was suppressed in the civil war and the preceding spiral of violence. Thus the anomaly.

Today of course, we have virtually the same half of the country that has not emerged fully into the present time and its needs and ways. It is less geographically concentrated, and in many places it is an urban-rural split. The people are more confused, though, and do not fully and clearly see who is causing the retardation of our country. Things will need to get clearer, with the opposition even more clearly drawn, and the retards will need to be defeated one way or another again.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This is all fine and well, but what if the ACW Crisis actually began a decade earlier? If so then, like today, the two sides pushed and pulled until the crisis erupted in full when passions rose high enough for caution to be thrown to the wind. None of what occurred in 1860-1 was any different than earlier attempts, except the degree of excess was high enough for the actions to be carried through. The vitriol was there for a long time.

I've never liked the abbreviated cycle S&H conjured for that saeculum. I seemed contrived to fit elements of their preferred model into the facts on the ground. If you loosen the model a bit, the anomaly isn't needed.

Exactly so.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Astrologically speaking, it speeded up to the movement of newly-discovered planet Uranus and its cycle of 84 years, which is the planet that represents modern times and revolutions of various and sundry kinds. That cycle and the positions of Uranus and Neptune in the zodiac would place the 1765-1773 period in a similar place as the 1850s and the 1930s, and today of course. .

Eric - Why does the discovery of Uranus influence its effects? Why did it not affect prior seculae?

Originally Posted by ChrisP

Eric - Why does the discovery of Uranus influence its effects? Why did it not affect prior seculae?

Good question. The answer is that discovery of an outer planet increases access of the people to its significance. The discovery of Uranus coincided with the discovery of its meanings in society, culture and science.

The cycles of the outer planets were very significant before discovery. Trends in culture and rulership followed their cycles. But their meanings were hidden from us as far as what kind of society we had. We were still under the rule of Cronos, or Saturn; the symbol of landed aristocracy and monarchy, and also of traditional science. Uranus brought The Enlightenment in the years leading up to its discovery (when it was sighted but it was unclear that it was a planet), the Revolution, the discovery of the electromagnetic spectrum and electricity, which also led eventually to modern physics, plus industry, romanticism (the freedom of the artist to explore the exotic, be an individual creator, etc.), and most crucial for the saeculum, vastly-increased involvement of the common people in the events and trends of the times, and much faster changes between generations. In the aristocratic, agricultural world, sons did what their fathers did, and careers were not open to talent. All these things changed in the Revolution, and that's what speeded up the saeculum, because progress as we know it had begun.

I was playing with the generations I constructed above with the simple rule:

Political gens: Defined as their COA period minus 23. This is when “history creates generations”. Add the age of leadership to the generation dates to get when “generations create history”. This period should then serve as the COA for a new generation. So you have history creates generation A and generations create history, which in turn creates a generation B and so on. In this way we can think of generation A “begats” generation B.

Cultural gens: Created from cultural movement, typically religious. Get the dates of the movement, subtract 14 from the beginning and 24 from the end to define the gen.

Looking at the table I constructed as an approximation for the American generations you can see:

The Awakening gen begat the Founders, who began two gens, the Liberty (elder) and the Constitution (younger).

The Liberty gen begat the Dem-Rep gen, who begat the Abolition gen, who begat the Civil War gen, who begat the Social Gospel (Progressive) gen, who begat the New Deal gen who begat the Civil Rights gen, who begat the Millennials.

The Constitution gen begat the Compromise gen, who begat the Unnamed gen, who begat the Gilded gen, who begat the Lost, who begat the Silent, who begat Generation X.

In this scheme the dominant gens (Prophets and Heroes) are the descendants of the elder “offspring” of the Founders and the recessive gens (Nomads and Artists) are the descendants of the younger.

In the S&H model they note a tendency for generations to adopt a stance opposite to those of the generation two above them. Thus, Artists are sensitive, so Nomads are tough, and the Artists they “beget” act against their hardness to be more sensitive. Similarly, Prophets are spiritual and inner-directed while Heroes are more results-focused, who end up “begetting” more prophets.

Note that this gen begetting a generation two down from them only began with the offspring of the Founders. The Founders themselves were begat by the generation one up from them, that is their parents. Thus it seems that an old-style, preindustrial, agrarian society that features 200-300 year Turchin-type secular cycles and shows S&H generations of biological length with each generation begetting the next one in the usual (biological) manner.

But in a modern society, the Turchin secular cycle shrinks to a saeculum length, and S&H-type gens move to the new pattern where a generation begets a new one, not biologically, but by influencing their paradigm formation during their COA by the sort of society they create when they are in power. The generation created is typically too young to have been their children.

I would link this transition to research that shows modern teenagers are more influenced by their peers than by their parents/homelife. That is, modern adolescents take their cues on what sort of adults they need to become from the larger culture (which is heavily influenced by societal leaders, i.e. those in power).

Does this make sense to you? Comment.

The dominant gens come in two flavors. The names I used above are their liberal halves of these gens. There are also the conservative halves, who are just as influential (potentially).

One can write the descendents of the Democratic-Republican as:

Abolition and Jacksonian. The first are those "created" by the abolition movement, the second are the political gen created by the Age of Jackson era that was n expression of the Democratic-Republicans in power. These "siblings" form the Whig and Democratic parties.

Union and Confederate the political gens formed by the Abolition and Jacksonian gens in power.

Social Gospel/Progressive and Jim Crow. The generation begat by the Union gen were receptive to the social gospel message (if religious) or the Progressive message (if not) produced by this gen. The generation begat by the Confederate gen responded to the new Jim Crow era they inaugurated.

New Deal/GI gen. The generation begat by the Progessives were receptive to the social welfare consciousness promoted by the New Deal created. The GI gen were receptive to WW II policies which implied America must be a force for good in the world.

Civil Rights/Austeriy. The first are those "created" by the civil rights movement, the second are the political gen created by the 1967-1980 era that was an expression of the New Deal/GI gen in power.

Millennials: This gen has yet to split into two version, taking different "lessons" from the ongoing 4T.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I was playing with the generations I constructed above with the simple rule:

Political gens: Defined as their COA period minus 23. This is when “history creates generations”. Add the age of leadership to the generation dates to get when “generations create history”. This period should then serve as the COA for a new generation. So you have history creates generation A and generations create history, which in turn creates a generation B and so on. In this way we can think of generation A “begats” generation B.

Cultural gens: Created from cultural movement, typically religious. Get the dates of the movement, subtract 14 from the beginning and 24 from the end to define the gen.

Looking at the table I constructed as an approximation for the American generations you can see:

The Awakening gen begat the Founders, who began two gens, the Liberty (elder) and the Constitution (younger).

The Liberty gen begat the Dem-Rep gen, who begat the Abolition gen, who begat the Civil War gen, who begat the Social Gospel (Progressive) gen, who begat the New Deal gen who begat the Civil Rights gen, who begat the Millennials.

The Constitution gen begat the Compromise gen, who begat the Unnamed gen, who begat the Gilded gen, who begat the Lost, who begat the Silent, who begat Generation X.

In this scheme the dominant gens (Prophets and Heroes) are the descendants of the elder “offspring” of the Founders and the recessive gens (Nomads and Artists) are the descendants of the younger.

In the S&H model they note a tendency for generations to adopt a stance opposite to those of the generation two above them. Thus, Artists are sensitive, so Nomads are tough, and the Artists they “beget” act against their hardness to be more sensitive. Similarly, Prophets are spiritual and inner-directed while Heroes are more results-focused, who end up “begetting” more prophets.

Note that this gen begetting a generation two down from them only began with the offspring of the Founders. The Founders themselves were begat by the generation one up from them, that is their parents. Thus it seems that an old-style, preindustrial, agrarian society that features 200-300 year Turchin-type secular cycles and shows S&H generations of biological length with each generation begetting the next one in the usual (biological) manner.

But in a modern society, the Turchin secular cycle shrinks to a saeculum length, and S&H-type gens move to the new pattern where a generation begets a new one, not biologically, but by influencing their paradigm formation during their COA by the sort of society they create when they are in power. The generation created is typically too young to have been their children.

I would link this transition to research that shows modern teenagers are more influenced by their peers than by their parents/homelife. That is, modern adolescents take their cues on what sort of adults they need to become from the larger culture (which is heavily influenced by societal leaders, i.e. those in power).

Does this make sense to you? Comment.

I think this follows my general line of thinking. You tend to be a tight model type, while I'm more in favor of a loose model, but both seem to fit inside this general structure. Good work.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The dominant gens come in two flavors. The names I used above are their liberal halves of these gens. There are also the conservative halves, who are just as influential (potentially).

One can write the descendents of the Democratic-Republican as:

Abolition and Jacksonian. The first are those "created" by the abolition movement, the second are the political gen created by the Age of Jackson era that was n expression of the Democratic-Republicans in power. These "siblings" form the Whig and Democratic parties.

Union and Confederate the political gens formed by the Abolition and Jacksonian gens in power.

Social Gospel/Progressive and Jim Crow. The generation begat by the Union gen were receptive to the social gospel message (if religious) or the Progressive message (if not) produced by this gen. The generation begat by the Confederate gen responded to the new Jim Crow era they inaugurated.

New Deal/GI gen. The generation begat by the Progessives were receptive to the social welfare consciousness promoted by the New Deal created. The GI gen were receptive to WW II policies which implied America must be a force for good in the world.

Civil Rights/Austeriy. The first are those "created" by the civil rights movement, the second are the political gen created by the 1967-1980 era that was an expression of the New Deal/GI gen in power.

Millennials: This gen has yet to split into two version, taking different "lessons" from the ongoing 4T.

I might add that there is always some degree of conflict between the two halves. The extent and virulence of the conflict, to say nothing of the balance between the factions, is the real battle we seem to fight here. The mega-saecular and atonement/advancement models attempt to rationalize this. I'm not sure either is fully valid, but the condition is there, whether it can be modelled or not.

Again, good analysis.

As for modeling here is a set of generations obtained by a mechanical procedure:

Generation	Born	COA	Proj. Leadership	Actual
Awakening	1716-1731	1730-1755	1763-1778	1765-1776
Liberty	1732-1741	1755-1764	1779-1788	1776-1789
Patriot (Republican)	1742-1753	1765-1776	1789-1801	1789-1801
Revolution (Republican)	1753-1766	1776-1789	1801-1814	1801-1816
Constitution (Compromise)	1766-1778	1789-1801	1814-1830	1816-1829
Jefferson (Compromise)	1778-1793	1801-1816	1830-1845	1829-1841
Compromise (Transcend)	1793-1806	1816-1829	1845-1860	1841-1861
Jackson (Transcend)	1806-1818	1829-1841	1860-1874	1861-1877
Polk (Gilded)	1818-1838	1841-1861	1874-1895	1877-1896
Civil War (none)	1838-1854	1861-1877	1895-1911	1896-1916
Gilded (Progressive)	1854-1873	1877-1896	1911-1933	1916-1932
Progressive (Missionary)	1873-1893	1896-1916	1933-1951	1932-1952
Lost	1893-1909	1916-1932	1951-1966	1952-1964
New Deal (GI)	1909-1929	1932-1952	1966-1988	1964-1988
Silent	1929-1941	1952-1964	1988-2004	1988-2008?
Reagan (boomer)	1941-1965	1964-1988	2004-2030	2008?-
Generation X	1965-1981	1988-2004
Millennial	1981-2007	2004-2030

I start with the Great Awakening which I date 1730-1755. I subtract 14 from the first date and 24 from the second date to get the dates for a cultural generation (one created by a cultural movement as opposed to political eras). I then add the average age of leaders (AL) to get their period when they were in power. These dates are compared to the corresponding political era for which this generation was the leaders. The actual era was used for the COA period for the Patriot gen which is generated by subtracting 23 from the COA dates. The process is then repeated to forecast the leader era for the Patriots and the COA for the generation two down from them, and so on. Between the Awakening and their daughter gen the Patriots is a space, which I fill in with the Liberty gen. This gen is the seed for its own set of daughter and granddaughter gens and so on. And that's it.

In parentheses I give the S&H equivalents. Note that for the modern gens there is a one-to-one correspondence between these gens and the S&H gens. But before 1820 two of these gens correspond to one S&H gen. Note also a Civil War gen is created just the same as all the others; there is no anomaly.

The key thing that makes this model work is the average leader age data compiled by S&H the the remarkably regular recurrence of important political eras as first noticed by Schlesinger in 1924. The bolded dates are either recognized critical realignment elections or obvious important dates in US history, Dec of Ind, Constitution, start of Civil War. There really is a cyclical character to American history, at least to recent times.

The leadership periods correspond to turnings. The different is with S&H the turnings were linked to when generations started to be born, as if these babies were somehow affecting history. In the formalism above the turnings are linked to different generations when in power, at which time they are actually in a position to affect history. And the outcome of their efforts, the actual political eras that result, directly creates a new generation that when it reaches the age at which power is wielded will create their political era and their own daughter gen. The generation created is not being born at that time, but rather is coming of age. This means people are born without belonging to any generation. They and their peers become one or another generation by their collective experiences living in the world ruled by the generation two up from them.

So today's Millennials are in the process of forming their peer identity. Their leading members (born 1981) formed their views during the Bush administration. The next wave is forming their views during the Obama administration. Those still in their teens are starting the process of forming their generational identity and those born since 2000 haven't really started.

For the Idealist gens (but not others) there are cultural generations that are contemporaneous with the political. For example Liberal Boomers like Eric might bridle at being included in the Reagan (political) generation (b 1941-65). But there is a corresponding cultural generation that one could call the Civil Rights generation defined by the period from 1955 (Rosa Parks) to ca 1980 (Women's movement peters out). Subtract 14 and 24 from the ends and you get 1941-1956 as birth years for a Civil Rights generation. In this way, you and Eric and Brian Rush fall into the Civil Rights gen, while 58' Flat and I are too young and fall into the Reagan gen. Conservative born in the early 50's would like be Reagan gen members. You can use the 4th great awakening (1960-80) to define a 4th awakening gen (b 1946-1956).

You can define an Abolitionist cultural gen (b 1807-21) using the same rules on the abolition movement that is contemporaneous with the Jackson political gen, that also forecasts the same Civil War period. Clearly abolition had something to do with the Civil War. The same can be done with the Social Gospel movement to find a generation contemporaneous with the Progressive gen and responsible for the New Deal era. And of course the great granddaddy of American gens was the Awakeners, who were themselves were a cultural gen stemming from the 1st Great Awakening.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This is pure speculation, but who should the Millies rally to support or oppose? They backed BHO solidly, and got nothing for it. Other than an old white guy from the backwoods, no one seems to be interested in fixing the problems, and, frankly, I doubt the Millies believe that Bernie's ideas have solid merit in any case.

They certainly have merit. It's simply a matter of fact that you bluehairs would not permit us to implement them, as they'd threaten your social standing.

Originally Posted by Einzige

They certainly have merit. It's simply a matter of fact that you bluehairs would not permit us to implement them, as they'd threaten your social standing.

Why should I oppose Bernie's ideas? He's foursquare for SS and Medicare ... in fact he wants to see them rise. Both are a plus for me. Noneo f his other ideas hurt me at all, except for higher taxes perhaps. Still, good overall.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Why should I oppose Bernie's ideas? He's foursquare for SS and Medicare ... in fact he wants to see them rise. Both are a plus for me. Noneo f his other ideas hurt me at all, except for higher taxes perhaps. Still, good overall.

I think he meant more the Dem party establishment, which age-wise is very old.

Originally Posted by Odin

I think he meant more the Dem party establishment, which age-wise is very old.

The Dems forgot that their reason to exist is the not-rich. Maybe that's changing now, but it's still engrained in the establishment. Last night's Presidential debate seems to indicate that they are coming around, but they aren't there yet.

Generation	Birth Years	COA (Gen create)	Leader Age (AL)		Leadership Era	Pol Moment or Turning
	997-1022	1019-1044	49	49	1046-1071	1046-1071
Norman	1024-1049	1046-1071	49	49	1073-1098	1078-1098
	1051-1076	1073-1098	49	49	1100-1125	1095-1122
Crusade	1078-1103	1100-1125	49	48	1127-1151	1123-1149
	1105-1129	1127-1151	48	48	1153-1177	1149-1175
Plantagenet	1131-1155	1153-1177	48	48	1179-1203	1175-1204
	1157-1181	1179-1203	48	47	1205-1228	1204-1231
Franciscan	1183-1206	1205-1228	47	47	1230-1253	1231-1253
	1208-1231	1230-1253	47	47	1255-1278	1251-1276
Montfort	1233-1256	1255-1278	47	47	1280-1303	1271-1294
	1258-1281	1280-1303	47	47	1305-1328	1305-1328
Famine	1283-1306	1305-1328	47	47	1330-1353	1328-1356
	1308-1331	1330-1353	47	47	1355-1378	1356-1381
Plague	1333-1356	1355-1378	47	50	1380-1406	1381-1406
	1358-1384	1380-1406	50	53	1408-1437	1406-1435
Lollard	1386-1415	1408-1437	53	54	1439-1469	1435-1459
	1417-1447	1439-1469	54	54	1471-1501	1459-1487
Tudor	1437-1465	1459-1487	54	55	1491-1520	1487-1524
	1469-1498	1491-1520	55	54	1524-1552	1524-1553
Reformation	1502-1530	1524-1552	53	53	1555-1583	1553-1585
	1533-1561	1555-1583	52	52	1585-1613	1585-1605
Armada	1563-1591	1585-1613	52	52	1615-1643	1605-1640
	1593-1621	1615-1643	52	41	1645-1661	1640-1653
Puritan	1623-1640	1645-1662	41	43	1664-1683	1653-1675
	1642-1661	1664-1683	43	43	1685-1704	1675-1691
Glorious	1653-1669	1675-1691	44	46	1697-1715	1691-1720
	1675-1693	1697-1715	46	46	1721-1739	1720-1746
Awakening	1699-1717	1721-1739	47	47	1746-1764	1746-1775
	1724-1742	1746-1764	47	47	1771-1789	1775-1789
Revolutionary	1753-1767	1775-1789	49	48	1802-1815	1801-1816
Jefferson	1780-1793	1802-1815	51	50	1831-1843	1829-1841
Abolitionist	1809-1821	1831-1843	53	53	1862-1874	1861-1877
Civil War	1839-1855	1861-1877	55	55	1894-1910	1896-1916
Progressive	1872-1888	1894-1910	59	55	1931-1943	1933-1947
New Deal	1911-1925	1933-1947	56	55	1967-1980	1967-1980
Baby Boom	1945-1958	1967-1980	60	61	2005-2019	2008-XXX
Millennial	1986-XXXX	2008-XXXX

The above table shows a millennium of turnings constructed using a simple rule. Given a period of history, the generation created from it is obtained by subtracting 22. The value 22 is the age by which people in their fifties have developed half of their political beliefs system that informs their voting patterns as determine from a model by Ghitza and Gelman. This generation comes to power when they reach the age of societal leadership A_L which is given by adding A_L to the generation dates. For the period 1790 to the present, A_L is the average of the mean ages of Congressmen, Senators, Governors and Supreme Court Justices, obtained from Neil Howe’s Life Course site. Before 1649, the end of the English Revolution, A_L is the lifespan of the English nobility, obtained from Cummins. Between 1650 and 1790 the following relation was used:

A_L = Lifespan – lifespan in 1800 + A_L in 1800.

The concept is that a generation “begets” another by creating the political/economic/cultural environment when in leadership that forms a new generation out of those coming of age at age 22. The way they do this is through the influence of the times on paradigm formation using the same sort of mechanism implied in Ghitza and Gelman’s generational voting behavior model. Thus, we can say the Millennials were “begotten” by the Boomers, who in turn are the progeny of the GI’s. If you look at the 20^th century part of the table above you will see that the generations/turnings are spaced about a generation apart. But if you look at the 16^th century part of the table you will see that the generations/turnings are adjacent. This naturally falls out of the model. THe mechanism was intuited by Kurt Horner, but he got the timing right. The source of the shift to shorter turning length, what S&H call the Civil War anomaly occurred as a result of the English Revolution in 1642-49. Before 1649, societal leadership was wielded by a natural(ly born) aristocracy, as represented by the King. As Horner intuited, power was wielded throughout life and reached its maximum just before death. Hence max power is exhibited at the average age at which leaders exited their leadership role, that is, at death and so if represented by the lifespans of societal elites. After the revolution, Parliament had the upper hand, and so the average age of MPs applied. I could not find actucal data for British MPs, but S&H compiled data for the US and I could use that to estimate what the corresponding British values might be for the period before 1790.

So at the Revolution leader age fell from 52 to 40. A value of 52 for A_L implies 30 year generations/turnings (= 52-22). But the 16^th century saeculum was enormously long. The Wars of the Roses ended in 1485 while the Armada war ended in 1603. These events defined to 4T, spaced. 118 years apart, which is consistent with 30-year turnings.

The value of A_L in 1789 was about 47, which implies 25 year generations/turnings. The 18^th century saeculum was much shorted than the 16^th century one. The Glorious Revolution sparked revolts and unrest in America that ended in 1691. The Constitution was ratified in 1789, ending the Revolutionary Crisis. These events define a 98-year turning.

The value of A_L in during the New Deal era was about 56, implying a two-generation spacing of 34 years. Two pf these imply a 68 year saeculum. We can data the saeculum from the end of Reconstruction to 1947, when the incoming Republicans put an end to the New Deal. This spacing is 70 years, which is close to the expected 68 years.

Looking at the present A_L has risen to 61 years, implying a 39 year two-generation spacing and a 78 year saeculum. A provisional dating for the most recently completed saeculum might be the crash of 1929 and 2008, which are spaced 79 years apart.

I’ve been playing with my model. Here I take three different versions of the present crisis and use the model to project backwards what previous 4Ts are consistent with these assumed dates, using the table of average age of leader (A_L) values I obtained from Howe’s website and other sources.

4T social moment	2008 start	2005 start	2001 start
Glorious Revolution	1685-1696	1682-1696	1680-1692
Revolution & Constitution	1782-1795	1777-1795	1774-1792
Civil War & Reconstruction	1866-1882	1863-1882	1860-1880
Depression & WW II	1935-1949	1933-1949	1930-1946
Todays’s 4T	2008-2024	2005-2024	2001-2020

What the model does is eliminate generational length as an adjustable parameter. Instead generational length is defined by A_L, which is the average of the mean age of Senators, Representatives, Governors and Supreme Court Justices, all of which can be obtained from Neil Howe’s database. A_L values increase with increasing lifespan. When lifespans were short generational length was A_L – 22. When lifespans rapidly increased in the 19^th century, generation length abruptly shortened to ½ (A_L – 22). What S&H call the Civil War Anomaly (which posters here long ago interpreted as a drop in generational/turning length in the early 19^th century) is an effect of rising lifespan, not “rising pace of life”.

Since 2008, I have favored a 2008 start for the present 4T. Before that, I favored the 2001 start.* Yet this analysis suggests that 2001 start gives the best fit of the past 4T’s. The later start states imply later generational dates and so later turning dates. A number of posters here support the 2001 date. Could one of you give a narrative for this turning, which if this analysis is valid, is more than half over?

Thanks

*I actually predicted the early 4T start back in 2000. If you go to the old site to The Future section and look up the Kondratieff cycle thread you will find an August 2000 post of mine in which I outline this correlation between the K-cycle and the saeculum. At the very end I conclude that the crisis should be starting soon.

The civil war saeculum, somewhat without the anomaly, looks like this to me:

1T 1794 - 1815
2T 1815 - 1834
3T 1834 - 1850
4T 1850 - 1865

It's still shorter than the other saecula, since I didn't change the start and end dates. But it smooths out the turnings and corresponds better to the history.

For the generations, I prefer saying that the Gilded Generation is a nomad-hero hybrid, and the Progressive a hero-artist hybrid. That means, no new generation or new dates are needed.

So the anomaly is not eliminated, but not exaggerated by saying there was virtually no crisis, and no hero generation at all. The anomaly is explained by the fact that the South and its medieval society was holding back progress in the previous 100 or 200 years, and the civil war burst open that dam.

The next saeculum, then, is as S&H say:
1T 1865-1886
2T 1886-1908
3T 1908-1929
4T 1929-1946

It is reasonable to say the Revolution Crisis ended earlier, from one point of view. But, the 4T according to S&H dates was also of normal length. That seems more likely. The previous 4T had seen the founding of new institutions and constitutional changes at or near the end of it. The events of the late 1790s parallel those of the late 1860s and the late 1940s in many ways. All three readjustment post-war periods saw fears and repression of "seditious" points of view. All three were periods when society was unsettled due to the recent war, but adjustments and reconstructions were being made. Once this unsettled early 1T era is over, then consensus builds and lots of capitalist and government-supported building of infrastructure and industrial power takes place.

The end of the war of 1812 signalled the rise of spiritual and protest movements. In America these lasted until 1834, as they did in Europe over the same period. In 1834-35, the South began to fight back and the abolitionists no longer had an easy time even in the North. After 1834 polarization increased. People also turned their attention more to the industrial boom starting, especially in the 1840s. This is similar to what happened when Taft took over in 1908; the momentum of the progressive movements declined. This was especially true of course in the roaring 1920s boom time.

The Crisis of 1850 and the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin were the catalysts for the now-inevitable civil war. Compromise postponed the fight, but failed to stop it and the crises that led to it in the 1850s. Measures to end the depression that started in 1929 ameliorated peoples' suffering, but didn't stop the depression, nor the war that it had unleashed by causing Hitler to rise to power and the events leading up to the war in the 1930s.

One point of view; not definitive I guess

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

One point of view; not definitive I guess

Exactly. Your CW dates of 1850-65 are the earliest I've seen. Next is Kinser's 1854-69. Then there is Dave McG's 1857-71 and Dave Krien's 1857-77. Finally S&H have 1860-65. One could posit 1861-77, that is the official beginning of the CW to the official end of Reconstruction. There are, to my knowledge 5 potential start dates and four different end dates, which tighter give 20 combinations. Some of these are largely independent sharing only the war itself in common.

How does one choose? Various narratives have their strengths. So I focus on which one fit in with a generational mechanism. So in the post above I pick three common start dates for the current 4T and use the generational mechanism to see what previous 4T dates are consistent with each. To my chagrin, I found that the start date I prefer, 2008, does not fit in with consensus notions of when the previous 4Ts were. Nobody claims that the Revolutionary and CW 4T's began AFTER the wars.

On the other hand the 2001 fits very nicely. Hence I am thinking I should give the 2001 narratives more consideration. Perhaps my politics has biased me towards the 2008 date.

Mike,

I know I make fun of a lot of what you do, here, but this is intriguing. I have favored a later start date, myself, but I'm willing to take a stab at a narrative. Basically, what this would mean was that 2000 was the economic drop-off, and 9-11 the catalyst for the political shift. Serial reinflation of asset bubbles (causing crashes causing the reinflation of asset bubbles) and blowback from intervention (spawning more intervention spawning more blowback etc.) are the characteristics of the 4T, which explains why the 2010s seem so like the 2000s, only more so. This suggests that the 4T resolution should come when we break out of these loops and enter a new era of America history, and until then we're stuck listening to this every morning.

I don't know, maybe a believer could do a better job. Seems a little thin to me, and one can argue that the same parallel exists to the 90s (a jobless recovery leading to a loose monetary policy that spurs the creation of a new bubble, conflict in Iraq, Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Probably Clinton, Al-Qaeda, etc). I know it doesn't quite convince me, but that might be unwillingness to agree with JohnMc82 talking.