There are several new observations that I have about the theory that are interrelated, and so I have waited until I had time to collect them into a single thread. I have tremendous respect for the work that Bill and Neil did 25 years ago. It was groundbreaking and it involved the work and insights of relatively few people. Much of that has been tested against time and will continue to be. Much has been proven true, while some things require tweaking. I would first like to address the length :

Recent history does not support the 22-year generation/turning. 19 to 20 years has been more the average since the American Civil War anomaly. According to Strauss and Howe we have the following generations:

Missionary (1860-1882) 23 years
Lost (1883-1900) 16 years
Greatest (1901-1924) 24 years
Silent (1925-1942) 18 years
Boomer (1943-1960) 18 years
Xer (1961-1981) 21 years
Millennnial (1982-2004) 23 years
Homelander (2005-2027?) 23 years?

Based on their dates, the average generation is 20.7 years, but if we take the Millennials and Missionaries out of the equation then it drops down to 19.8 years.

Now let’s examine historical events that might be plausible generation boundaries, noting that the distinction would be between those old enough either to remember or be emotionally affected and those who would not be:

1865 – The end of the American Civil War (a new status quo)
1886 – The Haymarket Riot (a disruption of the status quo)
1907 – The Panic of 1907 (an averted near catastrophe)
1929 – The Stock Market Crash of 1929 (an actual catastrophe)
1945 – The end of World War II (a new status quo)
1963 – The assassination of Kennedy (a disruption of the status quo)
1981 – The assassination attempt on Reagan (an averted near catastrophe)
2001 – The September 11th attacks (an actual catastrophe)

While I see no reason to revisit the Greatest/Silent/Boomer/Xer boundaries, I propose that the true generations are more likely to be as follows:

Missionary (1863-1883) 21 years

I think Strauss and Howe pushed for 1860 to start this generation off so that it would include William Jennings Bryan (and also Jane Adams). I’m not sure why it is essential to include them any more than it is essential for the Beatles and Jane Fonda to be Boomers. What [b]is[/i] essential is that the cohorts from Billy Sunday (1863) to Bob Jones (1883) be included.

Lost (1884-1903) 20 years

The earliest cohort includes President Truman while the last includes both John Dillinger and Lawrence Welk. I think that is plausible, although it means that Walt Disney (1901) and Bob Hope (1903) would also be Lost. Perhaps they fall into a category that we might call the “redeemed Nomad.” The idea here is that a cohort is defined early in life even if reshaped by later events. There is no reason that I know of that anyone born from 1901 to 1903 would not have had a Nomad experience in their early years while there was no end in sight to the awakening that produced Progressivism, Fundamentalism and Pentecostalism. Also note that Strom Thurmond (1901) received enough electoral votes in 1948 to almost upset Truman’s re-election. That seems entirely too early for him to be a GI.

Likewise, it should be obvious that World War I did not end simply because there were no more Lost recruits to pull from. However it did leave three cohorts free to attach themselves to the heroes of World War II. Whether that would make them true Heroes (in the generational sense) is a matter for discussion.

Greatest (1904-1924) 21 years

By not tinkering with the 1924/1925 boundary, I run the risk of contradicting what I just said. If I were consistent I might have to move it up to 1926/1927, because here again World War II did not end due to a lack of GI recruits. Is there any doubt that had it continued two more years that those who fought in it would be GIs and not Silents?

Silent (1925-1942) 18 years

They were too young for “the big one” and too old to be hippies. Enough said.

Boomer (1943-1960) 18 years

The oldest were war protesters, the youngest graduated from college with their hair still shaggy. No argument here.

Xer (1961-1979) 19 years

It is hard for me to picture Ben Savage and Macaulay Culkin as anything but Millennials. The fact that their cohort graduated in 1998 is no more problematic than those born in 1943 being called “Boomers.”


Millennnial (1980-1998) 19 years

The community spirit definitely exists among the 1997 cohort. I’m not so sure about the 1998 cohort, but I will include them anyway.

Global (1999-2017) 19 years [Note: With Alan Meece's encouragement I have changed this from "Plural."]

Sorry, but first of all the name “Homelander” strikes me as very lame. “Global” reflects the fact that this is the first generation not to be composed of any majority demographic. One thing I have observed about those born in 1999 is they seem to have more self-determination and less group think than their near elders. I expect college campuses to take note of this in the next year or two.

In case you haven’t noticed, while most 4Ters seem to think that the 2020s will wrap up the 4T, I expect almost the entire decade to be the beginning of the 1T. Somewhere around the year 2020 itself, I anticipate an event that will indicate the general acceptance of a new status quo. Prophets are just around the corner.

Now here’s a simple explanation of catalysts:

4T/1T – The moment that a closed society is perceived to be sustainable. This generally happens when the opposition has been made completely powerless. After WWII it was the Axis Powers. After the Civil War it was the South. After the Bill of Rights it was overreaching government itself.

1T/2T – The moment that a closed society is perceived to be unsustainable. Most recently the Haymarket Riots and the Kennedy Assassination were a wakeup call.

2T/3T – The moment that an open society is perceived to be sustainable. Most recently the Panic of 1907 (which seemed to be quickly fixed by the private sector) and the attempt on Reagan (that seemed to indicate that even in chaos there could be order) resulted in private optimism.

3T/4T – The moment that an open society is perceived to be unsustainable. September 11, the 1929 crash, and Bleeding Kansas were all mood spoilers for those who thought the good times could go on forever.

I think the shortness of the Silent and Boomer generations were an aberration caused by both generations generally becoming independent adults earlier than is usual and also for the Silents that the triumphant end of WW2 truncated the 4T and caused the 1T mood to set in early. The Xers saw a reversion to the norm.

I just cannot agree with 9/11 being the 4T start, it just saw the intensification of 3T squabbling. Remember, tensions and strong feelings can run quit high in a 3T, as they did after 9/11, but any sparks that happen do not have staying power and lack a sense of resolution because of the lack of Civics in public life. The WoT was an impulsive 3T imperialistic adventure, as was the security response. The Neocons' plans were classic 3T midlife Prophet idealism, not the sensible practicality of 4T midlife Xers.

Originally Posted by JDW

4T/1T – The moment that a closed society is perceived to be unsustainable. September 11, the 1929 crash, and Bleeding Kansas were all mood spoilers for those who thought the good times could go on forever.

I think you meant "open society", here!

I don’t think the 4T started on 9/11; 9/11 didn’t cause a crisis in confidence in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 everyone was still extremely confident about our ability to win the WoT. I’d put the start of the 4T at either the Fallujah ambush (when doubts about our ability to win in Iraq began to set in) or hurricane Katrina.

I’m less confidant about this but I think S&H got it right and the 3T started with the reelection of Reagan. In 1981 the economy was still in a deep recession and the 3T didn’t kick until the strong recovery kicked into gear.

I've been watching a BBC documentary (The Century of the Self - follows how Freudian thinking rose in the previous Awakening and then fell during the most recent Awakening) which really makes the argument that the election of Reagan was the culmination of 2T movements of individualism, not a contradiction of it, by pointing out the research researchers made into those who had participated in the Human Potential Movement--that Reagan and Thatcher's sentiments appealed to their individualistic natures and that the old focus groups of social class or economic classes were cut across by this new group of "self-actualizers" (based on Maslow's pyramid of needs) who went for Reagan the most--upsetting all the traditional predictions and researchers who were baffled by the election results, and that the Human Potential Movement had created this new society of people who were interested in living "lifestyles" which expressed their own individuality, and that corporations had learned to appease this new growing groups of people by saying that their "lifestyles" could be expressed with what they purchased.

Ipso facto, the Human Potential Movement is partly responsible for the Reagan election.

Add to it that the religious part of any Awakening typically seems to occur at the latter end of it (it most certainly did in the Missionary Awakening) and I don't think you can cut off the rise of the Religious Right from the 2T--not when their preachers were saying "It's time for God's People to come out of the closet!"

It makes sense when you consider Teddy Roosevelt & Andrew Jackson--the equivalent Presidencies to Reagan that's rather blatantly obvious--were also the fulfillment and culmination of their 2Ts as well.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I've been watching a BBC documentary (The Century of the Self - follows how Freudian thinking rose in the previous Awakening and then fell during the most recent Awakening) which really makes the argument that the election of Reagan was the culmination of 2T movements of individualism, not a contradiction of it, by pointing out the research researchers made into those who had participated in the Human Potential Movement--that Reagan and Thatcher's sentiments appealed to their individualistic natures and that the old focus groups of social class or economic classes were cut across by this new group of "self-actualizers" (based on Maslow's pyramid of needs) who went for Reagan the most--upsetting all the traditional predictions and researchers who were baffled by the election results, and that the Human Potential Movement had created this new society of people who were interested in living "lifestyles" which expressed their own individuality, and that corporations had learned to appease this new growing groups of people by saying that their "lifestyles" could be expressed with what they purchased.

Ipso facto, the Human Potential Movement is partly responsible for the Reagan election.

Add to it that the religious part of any Awakening typically seems to occur at the latter end of it (it most certainly did in the Missionary Awakening) and I don't think you can cut off the rise of the Religious Right from the 2T--not when their preachers were saying "It's time for God's People to come out of the closet!"

It makes sense when you consider Teddy Roosevelt & Andrew Jackson--the equivalent Presidencies to Reagan that's rather blatantly obvious--were also the fulfillment and culmination of their 2Ts as well.

~Chas'88

Although it would requires deviation from S&H orthodoxy, Andrew Jackson is another equivalent.

ETA: The presidents at the end of 2Ts and 4Ts are ultimately more influential at setting the tone for the future than the presidents in the middle of the turning. Even in the case of FDR and Truman, it was Truman’s welfare state plus anti-communism that was the dominant ideology for the next 4 decades.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I've been watching a BBC documentary (The Century of the Self - follows how Freudian thinking rose in the previous Awakening and then fell during the most recent Awakening) which really makes the argument that the election of Reagan was the culmination of 2T movements of individualism, not a contradiction of it, by pointing out the research researchers made into those who had participated in the Human Potential Movement--that Reagan and Thatcher's sentiments appealed to their individualistic natures and that the old focus groups of social class or economic classes were cut across by this new group of "self-actualizers" (based on Maslow's pyramid of needs) who went for Reagan the most--upsetting all the traditional predictions and researchers who were baffled by the election results, and that the Human Potential Movement had created this new society of people who were interested in living "lifestyles" which expressed their own individuality, and that corporations had learned to appease this new growing groups of people by saying that their "lifestyles" could be expressed with what they purchased.

Ipso facto, the Human Potential Movement is partly responsible for the Reagan election.

Hi again, Chas

Again, No!

The human potential movement released our spiritual awareness, and offered processes for liberating us from those things inside us and in society that kept us in prison.

That has nothing to do with free enterprise or "greed is good."

And although the slogan of freedom was used to deceive many, and a relative few boomers were deceived by it, that does not make it the major factor in Reagan's election. So why keep bringing it up? What have you got against the movement? Why do you want to smear it in this way?

Individual freedom to unfold one's potential has nothing to do with trickle-down economics, which empowers the bosses and thereby limits freedom severely. Those who favor the latter, were already Republicans. Reagan Democrats were already the hard hats and other blue collar workers who opposed the human potential movement and anything hippie, socially-liberal and anti-war. Reagan won with these elements, in combination:

1. Moderates and undecided voters who were disillusioned with the Carter "malaise" and the Iran Crisis and inflation and thought any change was better.

2. Those with whom the great communicator handsome actor resonated, and who were thus deceived into supporting him because of his appealing macho charm on TV.

3. Those already believing in trickle-down economics and all its slogans about welfare dependency with its racist dog whistle; a faction that goes back decades but was already revived in 1964 by Goldwater.

4. Social conservatives energized by opposition to hippies and civil rights movements by the Moral Majority.

I lived through this disaster and you did not, Chas. Although we are both students of history and culture, I am apparently a lot more familiar with this period than you are.

I support the human potential moement and remember its discoveries and achievements fondly. It taught a lot to me and my fellow boomers and others. It is necessary if we as a people are to become what we can be. Smears and slams are not helpful.

Add to it that the religious part of any Awakening typically seems to occur at the latter end of it (it most certainly did in the Missionary Awakening) and I don't think you can cut off the rise of the Religious Right from the 2T--not when their preachers were saying "It's time for God's People to come out of the closet!"

Yes that was #4

It makes sense when you consider Teddy Roosevelt & Andrew Jackson--the equivalent Presidencies to Reagan that's rather blatantly obvious--were also the fulfillment and culmination of their 2Ts as well.

~Chas'88

Hardly. The earlier 2 were definitely liberators in their own way. Reagan was a stooge and tool of the wealthy oligarchs whose power was threatened by the social and political movements of the Awakening, and who financed and guided him and helped hone his deceptive message. One of his primary goals had always been to squelch the human potential movement and the counter-culture, and his economic program fit right in with that goal. Make the middle class work all the time by lowering the minimum wage, crushing unions, boosting the rich, expanding buyouts and financial gambling, and thus making the middle class work so much that they'd have no time for "lifestyle." Reagan largely succeeded in this goal.

It is always an interesting sport to make opposites seem to be the same thing. But it's difficult to make that work. In this case it's an epic fail.

JDW, you might consider the name "Diversity." Your idea is good but that's a more catchy and appropo name.

"Plural" generation suggests that "homelanders" or "new artists" might actually be several generations who are different in their outlook but contemporary. do you mean to suggest this?

I disagree with your dates and prefer the S&H dates and see no reason to change them. 2008 began the crisis with a crash almost identical to 1929, and which happened for the identical reasons.

Alternate Generation Dates:

1743 - 1766 = Republican Generation - Civic
1767 - 1787 = Compromise Generation - Artist
1788 - 1808 = Manifest Generation - Idealist
1809 - 1829 = Gothic Generation - Nomad
1830 - 1847 = Gilded Generation - Civic
1848 - 1865 = Progressive Generation (includes Edith Wharton--who wrote The Age of Innocence, a more Progressive Generation book there is not!) - Artist
1866 - 1885 = Missionary Generation (ends with Eleanor Roosevelt) - Idealist
1886 - 1904 = Lost Generation (ends with Clara Bow & Helen Kane) - Nomad
1905 - 1924 = GI Generation - Civic

Originally, according to David Kaiser, the Missionary Generation was supposed to begin at 1863, the Missionaries include Eleanor Roosevelt, and a lot of the early 1900s Flappers actually be included in the Lost Generation, but S&H changed their minds at the last minute. David Kaiser still thinks the choice of including William Jennings Bryan and other 1860 - 1862 cohorts a mistake. I'd add throwing in Clara Bow and Helen Kane into the GIs was equally a mistake.

I've made no qualms about how I view the Civil War Saeculum Turnings--that I think S&H missed the boat:

1789 - 1811 = 1T (if the US is secure enough to admit new states like Vermont & Kentucky in 1790, then you've passed the 4T)
1812 - 1833 = 2T (begins with the Religious Revivalism of the Frontier beginning to spread back East in large numbers, also with the threat of secession from New England; Ends with the end of the Nullification Crisis)
1833 - 1850 = 3T (End of the Nullification Crisis - Compromise of 1850)
1850 - 1869 = 4T (From the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 sparking the sentiment that the Federal Government is in cahoots with the Slave owners in a "Slaveocracy" to Johnson's Reconstruction. It includes the New Orleans Massacre of 1868. The saeculum ends with Grant's actions as President calming down the Northern fears that Civil War might "re-strike" once again and the potential sparks such as the KKK army forming to challenge Governor Brownlow in Tennessee disbanding)

1869 - 1885 = 1T
1886 - 1907 = 2T
1908 - 1928 = 3T (The Model T's years of production, essentially and the rise and eventual dominance of the Ford Assembly line form of production)
1929 - 1945 = 4T

Some may ask: "But what about 3 years before the Turning rule?" It's not a hard rule--look to past Generations, where sometimes you had a generation cohort born AFTER the Turning had already started. It all depends upon how long a specific Turning lasts and the coming of age moment of cohorts as to what archetype they can solidify as--especially on the cusps. If a Turning lasts longer than average, it might dip into cohorts coming of age that might have been raised differently, thus extending a cusp.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Dan '82

Although it would requires deviation from S&H orthodoxy, Andrew Jackson is another equivalent.

I don't see how that's a deviation.

ETA (= edit to add): The presidents at the end of 2Ts and 4Ts are ultimately more influential at setting the tone for the future than the presidents in the middle of the turning. Even in the case of FDR and Truman, it was Truman’s welfare state plus anti-communism that was the dominant ideology for the next 4 decades.

But wasn't it FDR's "welfare state?" And Truman's anti-communism was very important, but the military industrial complex was from FDR too.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't see how that's a deviation.

According to S&H Jackson was president early in the 2T rather than in the 2T/3T cusp.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But wasn't it FDR's "welfare state?"

Policies enacted earlier in the 4T can certainly survive into the 1T if the president at the end of the 4T wants them to. Parts of it were but two of the most important parts the housing act of 49 and GI Bill weren’t. In most European countries the welfare states weren’t set up until the tail end of the 4T; the British welfare wasn’t established until the lection of Clement Attlee.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And Truman's anti-communism was very important, but the military industrial complex was from FDR too.

Maintaining MIC into peacetime was Truman’s policy under a different president the military might have been wound down as it had been after previous wars. Some important parts of the MIC such as the CIA were established under Truman.

Originally Posted by Dan '82

According to S&H Jackson was president early in the 2T rather than in the 2T/3T cusp.

Oh I see. Yes, I tend to prefer the dates that Chas mentions.

Policies enacted earlier in the 4T can certainly survive into the 1T if the president at the end of the 4T wants them to. Parts of it were but two of the most important parts the housing act of 49 and GI Bill weren’t. In most European countries the welfare states weren’t set up until the tail end of the 4T; the British welfare wasn’t established until the election of Clement Attlee.

The major part by far was. In Europe some people extend the 4T a bit longer than the end of the war.

Maintaining MIC into peacetime was Truman’s policy; under a different president the military might have been wound down as it had been after previous wars. Some important parts of the MIC such as the CIA were established under Truman.

That's a good point; although I doubt the massive size of the MIC created in WWII could have been dismantled as easily as in previous wars. Thanks to Churchill and Stalin, the new MIC became instantly valuable for the next war (the Cold War).

The late 4T is when new institutions are founded, according to the theory. In the 1T they become the foundation for an expansion of institutional power, building and conformity/consensus.

Another thing, I think "pro-consensus" and "anti-consensus" are better terms than "closed society" and "open society", which I find overly value-laden. Civics are consensus-builders, Artists consensus-preservers, Prophets consensus-destroyers and Nomads consensus-rejecters.

It is not until AFTER the Panic of '08 that you start seeing Millennials rapidly building a new consensus.

Oh, and I also want to point out that while Artists may take up the new cultural movements during the 2T they never shed their attachment to consensus, their desire is to try to assimilate the cultural changes into the old consensus.

Originally Posted by Odin

Another thing, I think "pro-consensus" and "anti-consensus" are better terms than "closed society" and "open society", which I find overly value-laden. Civics are consensus-builders, Artists consensus-preservers, Prophets consensus-destroyers and Nomads consensus-rejecters.

It is not until AFTER the Panic of '08 that you start seeing Millennials rapidly building a new consensus.

Agreed overall. And I want to say that watching Millennials go about it has been a lesson in the theory in practice. They started out from a position of overall inclusion and wide acceptance. And as they've gone along and made decisions as a generation they've narrowed down what is "acceptable" and what is "unacceptable". Tossing aside that which they deem unacceptable if not outright attacking it. They started from a 3T position though, of anything goes, and since then have been chipping away at it--and I think they're still going to chip away at it some more.

As they pass levels where they begin excluding things unacceptable--certain members of the cohorts "step off" so to speak, and some might protest the exclusion of their perspective, but to increasingly futile effect.

So, Civics start from a late 3T POV of "Anything Goes" and slowly chip away at it as they discover and come to a society-wide conclusion of what they can "accept" vs "not accept". That's at least what I've been observing since 2008 or so.

~Chas'88

Seeing 9/11 as a catastrophe is a total East Coast bias. It was not really a national catastrophe. Whereas, the Crash of '08 affected folks far and wide. Some of the scars seen from Sea to Shining Sea will never heel.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Seeing 9/11 as a catastrophe is a total East Coast bias. It was not really a national catastrophe. Whereas, the Crash of '08 affected folks far and wide. Some of the scars seen from Sea to Shining Sea will never heel.

New York bias.

Still, I date it with 2005 as the start of the Crisis, simply because the theme that came out of Katrina (government is too corrupt and too inefficient to do anything) has been carried through ever since.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Odin

Another thing, I think "pro-consensus" and "anti-consensus" are better terms than "closed society" and "open society", which I find overly value-laden. Civics are consensus-builders, Artists consensus-preservers, Prophets consensus-destroyers and Nomads consensus-rejecters.

It is not until AFTER the Panic of '08 that you start seeing Millennials rapidly building a new consensus.

Another before and after '08 observation.

Before '08, there were essentially no Millie politicians and after '08 the number of them steadily increased. Now, Millie politicians are a thing, especially in state and local jurisdictions.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

New York bias.

~Chas'88

Not just New York. DC was very much affected and became a boom town with the military/security industrial complex in full bloom. Of course, we also experienced some loss of life.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

New York bias.

Still, I date it with 2005 as the start of the Crisis, simply because the theme that came out of Katrina (government is too corrupt and too inefficient to do anything) has been carried through ever since.

~Chas'88

I would actually argue that Katrina was the 4T catalyst rather than the start of the 4T itself. Outside of the directly affected area, Katrina itself was not a huge issue (and this is coming from someone who lives in a state that has a gulf coastline (either the longest or second longest one).

What I would say happened with Katrina is that the mood shifted from the government could do something, to the government can't do anything at all. I would however argue that a mood shift itself is not enough to make a turning, one can be very pessimistic about the future and not be in an actual crisis--case in point myself when back in 2003 (before I had even read either of the books) I was saying that a neo-great depression would happen. Naturally of course my 1921 cohort grandmother was convinced at the time that I was "doom and gloom" even if things were going from bad to worse. Funny thing is, she died two years before the start of what I call Great Depression 2.0.

The actual event that caused the start of the 4T was the meltdown in 08 and that the mood change after Katrina while national in scope was local in effect. 9/11 was primarily local in effect and the ones pointing toward it being the catalyst let alone the trigger event have over time been shown to be wrong consistently.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

New York bias.

Still, I date it with 2005 as the start of the Crisis, simply because the theme that came out of Katrina (government is too corrupt and too inefficient to do anything) has been carried through ever since.

~Chas'88

That meme came in with Reagan; you know the guy elected because the folks out at Esalen Institute and all those Fritz Perls devotees supported him?

No, even in 2007 the folks at Washington Mutual were toasting the success of their real estate deals. Things were going along fine, and it wasn't even until 2008 ended that pundits actually used the R word to describe our economy. No, the date is Sept.2008; that's the definitive start of this 4T. That's when the public was genuinely scared out of its bejesus by what was happening. But it seems a bit of a phony 4T, only because stagnation and gridlock is the actual crisis itself. We are 1850s redux.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Agreed overall. And I want to say that watching Millennials go about it has been a lesson in the theory in practice. They started out from a position of overall inclusion and wide acceptance. And as they've gone along and made decisions as a generation they've narrowed down what is "acceptable" and what is "unacceptable". Tossing aside that which they deem unacceptable if not outright attacking it. They started from a 3T position though, of anything goes, and since then have been chipping away at it--and I think they're still going to chip away at it some more.

As they pass levels where they begin excluding things unacceptable--certain members of the cohorts "step off" so to speak, and some might protest the exclusion of their perspective, but to increasingly futile effect.

So, Civics start from a late 3T POV of "Anything Goes" and slowly chip away at it as they discover and come to a society-wide conclusion of what they can "accept" vs "not accept". That's at least what I've been observing since 2008 or so.

~Chas'88

Bill Clinton was on Steven Colbert last month and articulated exactly the issue I have been pointing out. Millennials for all their awareness have not yet become civics. To do that they need to learn to vote in midterm elections. Voting for a president is not enough. That's not how civics works. Clinton does have a way of articulating things well, even when he's parsing words like "is"

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That meme came in with Reagan; you know the guy elected because the folks out at Esalen Institute and all those Fritz Perls devotees supported him?

No, even in 2007 the folks at Washington Mutual were toasting the success of their real estate deals. Things were going along fine, and it wasn't even until 2008 ended that pundits actually used the R word to describe our economy. No, the date is Sept.2008; that's the definitive start of this 4T. That's when the public was genuinely scared out of its bejesus by what was happening. But it seems a bit of a phony 4T, only because stagnation and gridlock is the actual crisis itself. We are 1850s redux.

RE: the bold text. What I do know is, Red Boomers were instrumental in getting Reagan elected. I knew and know a few of them. One guy I recall, who lobbied me to join the GOP prior to the 1988 election, had in a past life dropped acid and been a real swinger in the literal sense - having sex in an inverted position hanging from a rope swing in some woods near here. I don't think he was lying after seeing the old pics he showed me - not of the act of coitus but of him with near butt length hair and the typical hippieish garb of the early 70s.

Another odd one was Eldridge Cleaver. From BPP founder to Moonie to LDS scion to GOP notable. Wow! What a trip man!

Originally Posted by Odin

I think you meant "open society", here!

Thanks for the catch. I've got a lot more to post, lots to respond to and so little time. Stand by....

Originally Posted by Chas'88

It makes sense when you consider Teddy Roosevelt & Andrew Jackson--the equivalent Presidencies to Reagan that's rather blatantly obvious--were also the fulfillment and culmination of their 2Ts as well.

I don't see equivalency between TR and Reagan. The Missionary Awakening from what I can tell was the Progressive movement. (In fact the Great Power Saeculum could easily be called the "Roosevelt Saeculum," started by TR and finished by FDR.) The Consciousness Revolution definitely was NOT the Reagan Revolution.