I see what you mean, but I can't see the current new crop taking to calling themselves "diversities," and probably not "plurals" either.Originally Posted by Eric the Green
Come to think of it, "Globals" actually has potential for catching on and might be pretty close to the meaning that we are both trying to achieve.
You're getting ahead of me!I plan to revisit these soon.
I agree with this. It eliminated the last clinging shreds that the US gov't would come through in a crisis. From the end of WWII on, there had been a belief in the US government's ability to respond to a crisis within its borders, especially regarding natural disasters and pulling together. "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job," were the words that unleashed the 4T.
I don’t see this among Millennials as a whole, I see it among groups subgroups of Millennials but those subgroups have wildly different views of what is acceptable, what I see among working class Millennials is very different from college educated Millennials.
I disagree, they were two side of same coin; an assault by two competing groups of elites against the middle class society of the 1T. The Consciousness Revolution was an assault by the cultural elites against the middle class dominated culture of 1T; the Reagan Revolution was an assault by the economic elites against the middle class economy of the 1T that only succeeded because it also attacked the cultural elites. After the Reagan Revolution politics has been about a war between the two groups of elites.
CR versus RR perhaps two sides of a coin, but how does this compare to the Missionary Awakening? Reagan clearly rode the conservative (late) portion of his 2T, while TR was on the leading edge of his own.
Yes, definitions are important before we can agree on specifics. 1Ts seem to be characterized by limited debate, while 3Ts seem to be characterized by free discussion. I'm not saying that free discussion ended with 9/11, but that it was the beginning of an effort to begin restricting it.
True, Millennials were not a significant player at the beginning of that effort. As they have come of age, however, they have helped shape what the ultimate consensus will be once the debate is truly limited. Katrina and the Wall Street Crash have certainly influenced their thinking.
Only in the minds of right-wingers who think social liberalism is the result of mythical "Cultural Marxists".
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Are you claiming that the Consciousness Revolution was not an attempt to have bohemian culture supplant the middle class cultural that had been dominant during the 1T? Because it seems pretty clear to me that that’s what if was. You didn’t have any problem criticizing the cultural elites here, so why are you so defensive when I’m doing it. The way I see it the counter culture was 20% legitimate demand that 1T culture become more inclusive and 80% decadent indulgence by upper middle class college kids.Only in the minds of right-wingers who think social liberalism is the result of mythical "Cultural Marxists".
ETA: The 1968 and 1972 democratic conventions demonstrate the hostility of counter-coulter towards the working and middle class.
Throughout his senate career Hubert Humphrey was the Senate’s strongest champion of both economics liberal and civil rights. Yet when he ran for president the counter culture not only opposed him in favor of Eugene McCarthy who was two Humphrey’s right (and went on to endorse Reagan in 1980), but rioted when he received the nomination(yes the behavior of the Chicago police was reprehensible). McCarthy sent the right cultural signals while Humphrey didn’t. Another little known fact about 1968 Mayor Daly opposed the war and wanted Ted Kennedy to receive the nomination.
In 1972 the counter culture and their candidate George McGovern made a concerted effort to prevent anyone close to organized labor from serving as delegates. Like McCarthy, McGovern was a moderate on economic policy but fully supportive counter culture.
Last edited by Dan '82; 10-28-2015 at 12:20 PM.
Yes, but is "an attempt to have bohemian culture supplant the middle class culture" the same as "decadent indulgence by upper middle class college kids"?
Yes that might be better.
Yes, Bohemianism has always been an indulgent culture for people from well off backgrounds.
It's more than that. Bohemian means revived interest in the arts, and a lifestyle that is not only indulgent but more liberating, culture-creative and unconventional. The latter does not necessarily mean indulgent, though that's often part of it. But becoming more-alive and free, and "indulgence," are not the same thing. The latter is a short route to addiction, which is not freedom. Therefore, bohemian also means higher consciousness and spirituality, which the consciousness revolution of the 2T was really all about. That actually leads into greater personal discipline. Nirvana is not indulgence.
Younger people today have no idea what was available to young people during the 2T; the entire cultural milieu of that time is foreign to most of them, and they don't know what happened. They would do well to learn, and to imbibe the vibe, as Justin Bieber is doing (his favorite song is "Let it Be").
Also, the sixties counterculture was not a cultural elite. The middle class youth in the sixties were well-off, because the entire middle class was strong then-- thanks to the preceding years of liberal government; but they were not "elites." The counter-culture movement was too vast to be called a movement of elites.
Reagan and the Republicans shrink the middle class, on purpose; with the aim precisely of drying up experiments in "lifestyle" and "bohemian" revolts against conformity and unfulfilling wage-slavery. They want to keep the people with their noses to the grindstone as busy bees creating wealth for the elites, deceiving them with trickle-down slogans. With no middle class youth, a bohemian culture is not possible. That was the GOP's goal, and they achieved it.
Quite untrue. Their candidates were strong advocates of policies that boost labor and regulate business. Many millennials today have a distorted view of the history of culture and politics.
McCarthy endorsed Reagan? Prove it.Throughout his senate career Hubert Humphrey was the Senate’s strongest champion of both economics liberal and civil rights. Yet when he ran for president the counter culture not only opposed him in favor of Eugene McCarthy who was two Humphrey’s right (and went on to endorse Reagan in 1980), but rioted when he received the nomination(yes the behavior of the Chicago police was reprehensible). McCarthy sent the right cultural signals while Humphrey didn’t. Another little known fact about 1968: Mayor Daly opposed the war and wanted Ted Kennedy to receive the nomination.
Kennedy wasn't running. If Daly opposed the war, why did he enforce the nomination of the pro-war candidate, and support him?
Humphrey was to the right of McCarthy, and was so viewed; mainly because of the Vietnam War, which was the main issue.
McCarthy's program is quite liberal, even if more prudent in some ways than simple tax and spend liberalism.
From his Platform:
The Economic Challenge
A Social Liberal and a Fiscal Conservative
Eugene McCarthy is the only economist running for President. His view of America's complex economic problems considers both human values and economic realities. The result is a simple consistent policy aimed at making the American economic system profitable for all its participants.
"We must redirect the resources of our economy to meet the needs of this country. And this means some rather obvious things."
McCarthy sees multi-billion dollar opportunities to save money in non-productive expenditures. He sees the savings as crucial if we are to have the resources to solve our social problems. In addition, he would overhaul an incredibly expensive and inefficient bureaucratic structure. For example, we have spent over one billion on a housing program for the poor that has left us with less housing than when it began!
Full Employment
"A profitable economic system must be obliged to provide jobs for people who can work." McCarthy states we should enlarge our view of corporations, and their responsibilities. We can no longer accept that the basic institutions of our economic system can operate only for the purpose of profit, and for the particular interest of those involved, leaving the rest to be taken care of on welfare."
"We should expect by law that corporations profitable in the long run be responsible for certain level of employment. McCarthy would generate additional jobs by investment into: housing, mass transit, educational facilities (emphasizing urban areas and useful vocational training), medical facilities, environmental reclamation, and recycling. The economy is not a value-free instrument of production. It must be organized for social ends and public goods."
A Minimum Standard of Living
For years, McCarthy has favored a guaranteed annual income as part of a minimum standard of living. It was a part of his platform in 1968 when he recommended a base of $5500 for a family of four. McCarthy views most current proposals as clearly inadequate. In addition, this policy should be combined with a health and medical program that recognizes the nature of most minimum income recipients-the young, the elderly, and the disabled.
Agriculture
Gene McCarthy may be the only candidate who really knows how to milk a cow.
His father was a farmer, and he represented a large farm state in Congress for 20 years.
He advocates continued use of price supports and other programs which help family farms stay in business.
But with virtual elimination of massive payments to large "agribusiness" corporations, and "hobby" farms that are used primarily for tax advantages.
He has supported and spoken on behalf of decent wages and working conditions for migrant workers since 1952.
http://www.4president.org/brochures/...72brochure.htm
McGovern wanted a very-strong liberal program to tax the rich and support the middle class and the poor. I handed out his brochures; I remember. The counter-culture supported McGovern and McCarthy because they were anti-war. That doesn't mean that McCarthy and McGovern were "fully supportive of the counter-culture." In what way did they do that? Was marijuana legalization a major plank in their platforms?In 1972 the counter culture and their candidate George McGovern made a concerted effort to prevent anyone close to organized labor from serving as delegates. Like McCarthy, McGovern was a moderate on economic policy but fully supportive (of the) counter culture.
They were to the left of today’s democrats on economics but so was Nixon, the focus of their campaigns wasn’t economic issues that appealed to the working class it was cultural issues that appealed to the well off counter culture.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...,4482541&hl=en
Had Kennedy wanted the nomination he could have had it; Daly supported Humphrey because labor baked Humphrey.
(edit to add, first paragraph) To the extent that you define the "counter-culture" as people who, whatever else they may have been interested in, supported feminism, gay rights, civil rights, peace, religious tolerance, environmentalism, etc. then certainly since the sixties Democrats have supported those, as well as economic working class issues (practically every other sentence the Democrats utter contains the words "working families"). But these social and "cultural" issues, which Archie (the bigot) was conservative on, are not about "bohemian indulgence," particularly.
But again, the "well-off counter-culture" was massive enough that liberal candidates like McCarthy and McGovern could appeal for their support, and that support meant something in terms of votes. Such a huge middle class that is well-off because of liberal government is not an "elite." Middle class boomer youth was well-off enough not to be deceived, unlike older working class drones like Archie Bunker, who were easily swayed by racist dog-whistles and other social-conservative nostrums. But because they are so easily swayed, the Archie Bunkers helped elect Reagan and Bush and thereby wrapped their chains around themselves ever-tighter. There was something the matter with Kansas; the working class did not vote for their own economic interests at all.
I suppose you would call Bernie Sanders a candidate of "the elite" too. Some pundits are calling him that because he's an older white guy from Vermont. But if the working class knows what's good for themselves, they will support him; and Hillary too if it comes to that.
OK, you win that one. I guess you can't expect the best from everyone. But his earlier platforms were nothing like Reagan's, as you can see. He actually ran again as a Democrat in 1988.
And because Humphrey was the establishment candidate, and the establishment supported the war.Had Kennedy wanted the nomination he could have had it; Daly supported Humphrey because labor baked Humphrey.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 10-28-2015 at 04:49 PM.
I think you are confusing education with social class, one of the big causes of the social movements of the 2T was that higher education had stopped being a thing for just the elites and became something open to anyone, this lead to a much broader % of the population to be educated enough to question social norms. The "80% indulgence" part is just Sturgeon's Law in action and not anything deeper than that.
Humphrey was disliked on the Left because he refused to denounce the Vietnam War, the notion that the hate against him was hate against the working class is a narrative invented by Nixon and repeated over and over on the Right until even people who should have known better started parroting it because it had become conventional wisdom.
And source for the claim about McGovern marginalizing labor?
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
You forgot "before the last 1T". Your statement stopped being true around 1950 because of the huge increase in prosperity after WW2 let even working class people indulge.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
I agree with Eric for once!
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Students from well off backgrounds were much more likely to become involved with the counter culture than fist generation students from working class backgrounds. My knowledge of the way that the counter culture students treated people from working class doesn’t come from lies Nixon told it comes from people who experienced it (most notably my ’31 cohort grandmother who returned to school at a 2T hotbed in order to become a teacher) there was real friction between the first generation students, who wanted to study and get a job and more well off students, who were into the counter culture and radicalism. My grandmother was anti-war but was nonetheless completely put off by the counter culture. From what I can tell the class divisions in the 2T were strongest in the urban north, southern whites of all classes were opposed to the 2T and it more moderate in the rural north and west.
It might take me some time to find the details about McGovern; I read about it years ago in book but don’t remember the source.
ETA: Not the source I remember but it talks about the delegates that McGovern excluded.
https://books.google.com/books?id=GL...page&q&f=false
And George Meany has a homophobe.
Last edited by Dan '82; 10-28-2015 at 09:55 PM.
The coasts are where it's happenin', for sure
I sure wouldn't have to do thatIt might take me some time to find the details about McGovern; I read about it years ago in book but don’t remember the source.
I posted a new method of doing generations/turnings that uses a systemic procedure to create a new generation given a "seed" generation. The table shows an example using the bolded turnings as seeds to construct a generation by subtracting 22 years. This generation then "creates history" when it reaches leadership age AL. This history then creates a new generation amongst those coming of age by subtracting 22 form these dates to get the "daughter" generation from the initial generation.
So I start with the Norman Conquest 1042-1071. And grind out the subsequent turning/generations predicted by the formula until I get to a projected 4T over 1471-1501. Presumably this predicted 4T is supposed to be the Wars of the Roses, for which I put in the S&H dates and start with that as a new seed. After running the model for 4 centuries a 13-year "drift" had accumulated, which is not too bad.
Given the new seed I run this forward to generate a predicted 4T over 1585-1613. Obviously this is supposed to be the Armada Crisis. The Armada war ran from 1585 to 1603. The prediction got the start date dead on, but the ending date is a whole decade off. One the other hand, S&H data the Armada 4T way differently, starting the Armada 4T 16 years before the war began. Since I cannot justify any hard and firm dates for this 4T I don't reseed the model here, but just keep going forward and see what shows up. Going two down gets me to a projected 2T over 1645-1662. This is not too far from a 2T made up of the English Civil War and Commonwealth 1642-1660. Again S&H date this 2T starting way earlier, so I don't reseed the model and just keep going down two more to get a 4T prediction for 1685-1704. These are pretty good dates for the British Glorious 4T as the path towards the Glorious Revolution began in 1685 when Charles II came to the throne. But in America a good case can be made for beginning the 4T in 1675, when S&H do, so I went with a 1675 start. The Glorious Revolution in America was associated with several revolts, which had all ended by 1691, so I end the American 4T in 1691. The British 4T went on longer, I supposed one could use the S&H end point of 1704 if you like and have a British 4T over 1685-1704 and an American 4T over 1675-91. Since I am doing the American line I put the 1675-91 dates in as a seed and out comes a projected 4T in 1771-1789. This is an excellent approximation for the Revolutionary 4T, which I date 1775-89 (start of the war to ratification of the Constitution). The 1775-89 dates become a new seed because these dates are pretty hard and firm. The next 4T is predicted for 1862-1874. This is a pretty good approximation for the actual dates 1861-1877 (Civil War & Reconstruction). Using these dates as a new seed I project the next 4T for 1931-43, which is close to the 1933-1947 dates for the actual 4T (New Deal era: from FDR's first year to start of Republican Congress in 1947) which again seems pretty hard and firm. I repeat the procedure and I get a forecast the present 4T over 2005-2019, which is pretty close to the dates being bandied about here. In between is a predicted 2T over 1967-80. I don't have hard and firm dates for this 4T, but this dating doesn't look way off. I favor 1964-1980, but other dates would be suitable.
An interesting application picking different starting date for the current 4T and constructing the last 2T and 4T before that which is consistent with it. For example if you like 2001 as the 4T start this implies a 2T beginning in 1963, which is certainly reasonable, and a 4T before it beginning in 1929, which is also perfectly reasonable (its the date S&H use). If you are a conservative you might define a 2T that covers events in the Evangelical movement and the "counter revolution against the New Deal, that is the late 1970's stagflation and "malaisse" posing a crisis that was addressed by the Reagan Revolution, which ended with the election of Bill Clinton. This you might date as 1975-1992, which would project a 4T beginning around 2013 and the previous 4T running over 1941-59. Here the Depression would be a 3T panic and the crisis would be WW II and the onset of the Cold war. You would likely run into problems and so not favor this line. What I am saying is you can explore what starting the Civil War 4T in 1850, like Eric favors implies about the surrounding turnings. Can you use an alternate Civil War 4T and get the Revolution going backward and something looking like a 20th century 4T that makes sense to you going forward. They are an enormous number of permutations.
I'd love it if folks were to take their own favored dates for a particular turning for which they feel pretty confident and use this procedure to go forward (you can also go backward) to see what sort of future/past turnings you generate and see if they match up with other turning dates for which you feel confident of the dating. The table give AL values for the projected periods, and these are typically good for the period around them so you can get AL values simply by picking the AL value in the table from a date close to the one you are exploring.
Someone might wish to explore the British turnings starting at the Glorious to see what they get and whether they make sense. You can't go beyond 1800 though since the AL values after 1790 come from American data, and quite likely British AL values will be somewhat different. I haven't found a source for average age of British MP's by age cohort like S&H have done for America.
Last edited by Mikebert; 11-01-2015 at 06:52 PM.
I was glad to see someone was recently looking at this, although mostly because of an older item -- the Lost.
The distance between the end of the Awakening and the end of the Nomad generation is usually about 3 years. Actually, that's about the offset in general: Your generation starts about 3 years after the Turning that makes you begins, and ends similarly.
That makes sense: For the first few years of life, you aren't aware enough of what's going on in the larger world to be affected by it. Your generational identity exists because of events that affect everyone in a cohort group similarly, and that requires some awareness of events.
The Lost generation, though, is identified as ending in 1900, with the GI generation starting in 1901. However, the Progressive (Third) Awakening ends in 1908. That's according to The Fourth Turning, and currently on the Lifecourse site. As you note, that implies that the Lost generation should continue for a few years, and include Walt Disney (1901) and Bob Hope (1903). (And John Steinbeck (1902) who I think belongs with the Nomads, too...)
In Generations, the end and start dates are the same, but the Awakening ends in 1903. Which works better all around.
Mostly, though, I don't see why this particular group would have such a wide gap between the end of the Second and the end of the generation's births. (Or, if you prefer, why the GIs start so early compared to the start of the Third.) Is there any explanation around for it?
(The Fourth Turning puts the end of the Second after the Panic of 1907; Generations mentions that Panic as well, but indicates the peak of "youth movements" during Teddy Roosevelt's first term as being the end.)
Wow, that was one long sentence!
1) You do not consider that something which begins in a 2T and has a certain nature can morph into another quality and become representative for instance of a 3T. Thus, the lifestyle focused individuals that partly made up the electorate of Thatcher and Reagan ought not to be regarded as representatives of the Consciousness Revolution/Human Potential Movement, but rather as a nihilistic stage of self-actualization.
2) That during a 2T individualisation as a verb is part of the breakup of previous stable conditions, but during a 3T you have indvidualisation as a noun, describing that the old stability no longer exists. I think the latter state of affairs is what Reagan could tap into in 1980, while during the 2T you had, as Curtris lays out, for instance advertising floundering in encountering the consumer (or anti-consumer) patterns of the CR liberated individual.
Last edited by Tussilago; 11-26-2015 at 10:23 AM.
INTP 1970 Core X
