Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

A case in point: Michael Alexander interpets many things in his treatise The Kondratiev Cycle: A Generational Interpretation

One notable "interpetation" are the Political events listed in Appendix D on page 263. According to the Alexander's "validated methodologies," he concludes that the important matter of war and conflict are "political events" of a conservative or liberal nature.[/i]

First of all, Marc, the political cycle isn't validated. It most certainly relies on an interpretation of whether one labels an event with an L or a C. In this way it is different from an unrest or religious event, which is mostly a matter of definition.

You love to focus on politics which is one of the least fruitful areas of cycle research, largely because its so subjective. Trying to use politics to define the saeculum simply isn't going to work. Take trying to predict the election result. What do you get. If you assume we are in a liberal era, the prediction is the conservative incumbant will win. If you assume that we are in a conservative era, the prediction is the conservative incumbant will win. But the probably is about 40-80%. In other words, flipping a coin is about as accurate.

You make this prediction that Bush will win in a landslide. But the most accurate predictor shows Bush with a slight lead--no sign of a landslide.

More than two years ago I asked you (as the only one who ever expressed interest in the political cycle) if you would mark the events yourself, so I could run the test again to test sensitivity to interpretive drift (which is part of validation). You never did. So its not validated.

As far as my intrepretation comment. You cannot simply look at history, get a gut feel and then draw a valid cycle. If turnings could be detected by inspection, the cycle would have been discovered long ago and not by S&H.

You are not the only conservative in America with a passing familiarity with American history. Thus you are not the only person to look at history from a conservative perspective and either see the cycles or not. If there was anything to what you think you see, it would have been reported a long time ago. Since nobody has, they either aren't there or they can't detected by inspection.

If you really think there's something there, write it up, and let your colleagues decide if what you say holds any water. Lord know you've written a couple of books worth of posts.

Nothing of what I report is new. All the cycles I describe were all noted by others, mostly a long time ago: Kondratiev cycle in 1847, Juglar in 1862, Schelesinger before 1920, Kitchen in 1922, Kuznets in 1930, War/hegemony cycle in 1941, saeculum in the 1970's.

Even the correlation between the K-cycle and the saeculum isn't my idea. Neither is the alignment between the saeculum and the Schlesinger cycle. Not only that but S&H noted the correlation between Modelski's cycle and theirs long before I picked up on it.

I make use of some methods that were not available to earlier workers, which is why I think it might be worthwhile to revisit this old ground.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Be that is may, men and women are routinely deprived of liberty (ie., go to jail) or worse, executed, based upon "interpretation" of the evidence. Our entire system of jurisprudence relies upon human "interpretation."

Well duh. Jurisprudence isn't science. A court is frequently required to make a determination when it is impossible to make an accurate determination. The value to society of making this determination, despite the risk of error, is greater than the harm done when it is wrong. This is why we have courts of law.

That our justice system utilizes certain time tested and "validated methodologies" to "obtain a reproducible" sense of social justice and are sometimes wrong, underscores your point.

Courts do not use validated methodologies. In fact they are openly acknowledged to be unvalidated and prone to error. But they are all we have.

But having to "rely upon 'interpretation' of history does not preclude that a cycle isn't there..."

No. It means we are acknowledging that, like the law and unlike science, it is impossible to reliably make accurate assessments. However, unlike the law, for which there is a value to making judgements even if sometimes inaccurate, there is no need to interpret history. Therefore, if we must resort to interpretation to do it, why bother--except of course as idle speculation for fun.

It's like making lists of the top 10 Rock groups of all time. There is no such thing as an "accurate" or "valid" list. The activity is done for fun, not to accomplish some purpose.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Points [1] and [2] create a two-stroke cycle that gives rise to alternating dominant and recessive generations and alternating social monent and non-social moment turnings.

Points [4] and [5] define another two-stroke cycle that gives rise to alternating kinds of social moments. Thus the final cycle is a 2 x 2 stroke cycle or four stroke cycle, with two fundamental mechanisms.

Ok, I think I understand the objections you've been raising now. We have two motive forces here, a nurturing cycle and a mentoring cycle. It seems to me that we have each generation being shaped by the generation 1 position back (via nurturing) and 2 positions back (via mentoring).

What the-poster-formerly-known-as-WJB was getting at (and which I agree with) is that this structure works even if the generation three positions back is largely deceased (as would be the case in a 27-year, agricultural age saeculum). Furthermore, even if the generation three positions back was not largely deceased (as would be the case in short saeculum with long lifespans) that generation would fail to substantially influence the new generation. It would be of un-like nurturing type (and would have difficulty relating to them for mentoring purposes) and would not be the parents of the new generation (so nurturing would be inoperative).

Now, theoretically, if the generation four positions back existed in sufficient numbers, you would get a more complicated mentoring cycle and get 6 turnings. But so far, there has never been a situation where most of a generation four positions back was still alive when a new generation got to the age where mentoring effects would be relevant (at least five years old, since they would need a grasp of language).

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

A case in point: Michael Alexander interpets many things in his treatise The Kondratiev Cycle: A Generational Interpretation

One notable "interpetation" are the Political events listed in Appendix D on page 263.

First of all, Marc, the political cycle isn't validated. It most certainly relies on an interpretation of whether one labels an event with an L or a C. In this way it is different from an unrest or religious event, which is mostly a matter of definition.

The description of your book reads:

• Many authors have attempted to identify an underlying meaning or pattern to history. Arnold Toynbee wrote of 100 year cycles of war and peace that emerged after the Renaissance. Nikolai Kondratiev wrote of 50 year waves in economic life. Arthur Schlesinger wrote of a recurrent political cycle in American politics. Most recently, William Strauss and Neil Howe have written a generational interpretation of American history.
  
  The Kondratiev Cycle: a generational interpretation provides empirical evidence showing that these cycles are aligned together...

Since your response to my post contained no specific rebuttal to my review, and you confess that "the political cycle isn't validated," then why include it in a book that claims to have "empirical evidence"?

Furthermore, I find this to be an incredible statement on your part:

• More than two years ago I asked you (as the only one who ever expressed interest in the political cycle) if you would mark the events yourself, so I could run the test again to test sensitivity to interpretive drift (which is part of validation). You never did. So its not validated.

Yet you still put it in your book? And who the hell am I that I could "validate" your "political cycle" events? Hell, I told you then the whole "events" means of determining cycles was bogus because you didn't "weigh" each event in importance. This applies to your "unrest or religious event" model as well, if not more so.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

More than two years ago I asked you (as the only one who ever expressed interest in the political cycle)...

This claim, I think, has to take the cake. I mean, most every single poster that has bothered to post at this website looks at the S&H theory as the great hope for getting those rotten conservative Republicans the hell outta Washington! Get real, dude.

Perhaps what you meant to say is that I'm one of the few who actually cares enough about history to try and get it right...

Nah, that's not what you meant at all.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Yet you still put it in your book?

Of course. How can one determine whether or not an approach is on the right track unless you publish. Publishing is part of the validation process.

And who the hell am I that I could "validate" your "political cycle" events?

Another point of view, different from mine. It could test the effect of selection bias on the method. This is a sensitivity analysis. It doesn't by itself validate the methods, but it is a step towards that goal.

Hell, I told you then the whole "events" means of determining cycles was bogus because you didn't "weigh" each event in importance.

Can you define an objective definition of importance?. Importance is in the eye of the beholder. What is important to me might not be to you or someone else. An equally-weighting strategy is at least consistent. You have to start someplace.

I did consider weighting. I tested the idea using a list of 1100 classical composers birthdates. Such a dense timeline is very hard to get for stress events or religious events. But here I got it all compiled from one source, a music fan who had simply compiled this list. He wasn't trying to make any point and so I could assume his list wasn't biased towards showing "composer cycles".

First I did the standard analysis with equal weighting. Result: no cycle. I then employed a detrending method to bring out less obvious cycles. Result: a random (Slutsky) cycle. I then tried to weight the composers in terms of importance using my own sense of which ones were important. The result was a cycle that could be visualized without the detrending method. It showed several prominent peaks, but still was a Slutsky cycle. The peak size implied that Baroque era composers were more important than composers from later eras. Does this mean anything, or does it simply reflect the fact that I am partial to Baroque music? It's certainly the latter, so by weighting the events I simply introduced my own personal bias upon the data.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

This claim, I think, has to take the cake. I mean, most every single poster that has bothered to post at this website looks at the S&H theory as the great hope for getting those rotten conservative Republicans the hell outta Washington! Get real, dude

You were the only one to respond to my intial post on the topic. That's what I meant.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Ok, I think I understand the objections you've been raising now. We have two motive forces here, a nurturing cycle and a mentoring cycle. It seems to me that we have each generation being shaped by the generation 1 position back (via nurturing) and 2 positions back (via mentoring).

No, that's not it. The nurturing/mentoring role ([4] and [5]) is one mechanism. This is the one that S&H refer to when they say generations create history.

There is also the interaction between a social moment and the phase of life role ([1] and [2]) that creates generations. This is the mechanism they refer to as history creates generations.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Alexander ... concludes that the important matter of war and conflict are "political events" of a conservative or liberal nature. He then interpets that the Korean war, the US backing of the French In Vietnam and the coup in Guatemala, the Bay of Pigs fiasco, LBJ's Vietnam, the invasions of Panama and Iraq all to be conservative events. In fact, on matters of 99% of foreign policy issues they are all conservative events.

Yep.

So, how does Alexander interpet the twentieth centuries two largest political events, World War one and two? He doesn't give them an "L" or a "C". They are thus conspicuously absent from his important chart. Of course this is no mistake on Alexander's part, because he tends to believe as does Arthur Schlesinger: those wars were America's wars. Everybody supported them, both liberal and conservative.

I don't think support has anything to do with the labeling. You are right I should put WW I and WW II in (and just did).

Of course this "interpetation" ignores many things. Namely that Americans were very divided when Roosevelt "unconstitutionally" ramped up the pre-war volume with Churchill, that he instituted the nation's first peacetime draft (strangely none of this pre-war stuff in listed on his chart for 1916 or 1940, or 1964), that Roosevelt and the Democratic Party targeted 115 isolationist Republicans for defeat in Congress in 1942 and then promptly suffered the fourth worst off-year election drubbing of the entire 20th century (even worse than Democrats did in 1994).

Here is the current list for 1940-41

1940 L Selective Service Act
1940 C Alien Registration Act of 1940
1941 L Lend-Lease Act
1941 L Atlantic Charter
1941 C WW II begins

But even worse, Alexander total ignores the fact that these "isolationists" won the argument after WWI, but completely lost that same argument after WWII

I don't see the relevance.

"Nixon wins presidency on anti-war platform, begins withdrawal" is an "L" event???)

By running as the "peace candidate" with a secret plan to end the war, Nixon was running to the left of Humphrey.

No matter, interprets Alexander, America's interventionist foriegn policy after WWII, virtually invented by three liberal Democrats, was not a liberal concern at all, but a conservative one.

There were lots of interventions before WW II. Interventionist foreign policy wasn't "invented" after WW II.

1856 First of five U.S. interventions in Panama to protect the Atlantic-Pacific railroad from Panamanian nationalists.
1898 U.S. declares war on Spain
1903 When negotiations with Colombia break down, the U.S. sends ten warships to back a rebellion in Panama in order to acquire the land for the Panama Canal.
1905 U.S. Marines help Mexican dictator Porfirio D?az crush a strike in Sonora.
1905 U.S. troops land in Honduras for the first of 5 times in next 20 years.
1906 Marines occupy Cuba for two years in order to prevent a civil war.
1907 Marines intervene in Honduras to settle a war with Nicaragua.
1908 U.S. troops intervene in Panama for first of 4 times in next decade.
1910 U.S. Marines occupy Nicaragua to help support the D?az regime.
1912 U.S. Marines intervene in Cuba to put down a rebellion of sugar workers.
1912 Nicaragua occupied again by the U.S., to shore up the inept D?az government.
1914 U.S. bombs and then occupies Vera Cruz, in a conflict arising out of a dispute with Mexico's new government.
1915 U.S. Marines occupy Haiti to restore order, and establish a protectorate which lasts till 1934.
1916 Marines occupy the Dominican Republic, staying till 1924.
1917 Marines intervene again in Cuba, to guarantee sugar exports during WWI.
1918 U.S. Marines occupy Panamanian province of Chiriqui for two years to maintain public order.
1925 U.S. Army troops occupy Panama City to break a rent strike and keep order.
1926 Marines occupy the country to settle a volatile political situation.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

No, that's not it. The nurturing/mentoring role ([4] and [5]) is one mechanism. This is the one that S&H refer to when they say generations create history.

There is also the interaction between a social moment and the phase of life role ([1] and [2]) that creates generations. This is the mechanism they refer to as history creates generations.

In that case, I would have to say the S&H mechanism is flawed. The "interaction between a social moment and the phase of life role" would vary greatly with saeculum length and is not all that significant. It doesn't really matter what age the generation two positions back is relative to the new generation -- simply that the generation two positions back is still around in substantial numbers.

In my opinion, the nurturing and mentoring are two different mechanisms. There are the older folks telling the kids of what life was like in the last turning of their basic type (mentoring) and the kids parents who are trying to correct parenting errors that they experienced (nurturing).

There are two binary states effecting each generation, therefore 4 archetypes. In essence, I'm arguing that generations shape history but the opposite is not true. The mechanism I have discussed is more than sufficient to explain the cycle.

In the High, Prophets are born to Artists who protect them and give them the "social" archetype. There are also many Heroes around who mentor the new Prophets making them idea-oriented (a reaction to the excessive upheaval of the Crisis). This makes the Prophets "social" and "idealistic" and when they come of age, you get an . . .

Awakening wherein Nomads are born to Prophets who neglect them and give them the "austerity" archetype. There are also many Artists around who mentor the new Nomads making them more independent (a reaction to the confomity of the High). This makes the Nomads "austere" and "independent" and when they come of age, you get an . . .

Unraveling wherein Heroes are born to Nomads who protect them and give them the "social" archetype. There are also many Prophets around who mentor the new Heroes making them goal-oriented (a reaction to the lack of direction of the Awakening). This makes Heroes "social" and "pragmatic" and when they come of age, you get a . . .

Crisis wherein Artists are born to Heroes who neglect them and give them the "austerity" archetype. There are also many Nomads around who mentor the new Artists making them group-oriented (a reaction to the fragmentary nature of the Unraveling). This makes Artists "austere" and "communal" and when they come of age, you get . . . another High.

Of course, in that last paragraph if the majority of artists that saw the last High are still around in the Crisis, then you might get the 5th turning archetype (a less conformist artist-like generation) rather than an Artist generation.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Alexander ... concludes that the important matter of war and conflict are "political events" of a conservative or liberal nature. He then interpets that the Korean war, the US backing of the French In Vietnam and the coup in Guatemala, the Bay of Pigs fiasco, LBJ's Vietnam, the invasions of Panama and Iraq all to be conservative events. In fact, on matters of 99% of foreign policy issues they are all conservative events.

Yep.

Am I to assume that you entered WWI and II as "L"? Yet all those "interventions" you listed, from 1905 to 1926, were "C"? Is this a reasonable measure of the difference between L and C? Your "Yep" seems so sure and confident. Yet are you really being consistent? If mere "foreign" intervention is the rule, then WWI and II were interventions, too. But if the latter were something different from the former to make one L and the other C, what is it? Is it hemispheric (invoking the old Monroe Doctrine), Latin America v. Europe and Asia, perhaps? If so, then our post-WWII interventions into Indochina (invoking the new Truman Doctrine), like your "L" Marshall plan, and other non-Latin American countries would have to be "L," too. To be consistent they would be L.

Are you getting my drift, or am I off the mark?

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

In that case, I would have to say the S&H mechanism is flawed. The "interaction between a social moment and the phase of life role" would vary greatly with saeculum length and is not all that significant.

The flaw is the issue of this thread. I disagree that the interaction between the times and generation is not significant. I think the experience of being a particular age during momentous periods of history "brands" a generation.

In my opinion, the nurturing and mentoring are two different mechanisms. There are the older folks telling the kids of what life was like in the last turning of their basic type (mentoring) and the kids parents who are trying to correct parenting errors that they experienced (nurturing).

How important is this old folks telling kids stories? In my own life I don't see this as relevant at all in shaping my own view of the world. On the other hand coming of age in the late 1970's "branded" me as an anti-deficit inflation hawk for life.

There are two binary states effecting each generation, therefore 4 archetypes. In essence, I'm arguing that generations shape history but the opposite is not true. The mechanism I have discussed is more than sufficient to explain the cycle.

I disagree. I don't see it as strong enough, or even relevant in many cases. I do not recall different messages being sent by people older than my parents in my youth that shaped me. Do you?

In the High, Prophets are born to Artists who protect them and give them the "social" archetype. There are also many Heroes around who mentor the new Prophets making them idea-oriented (a reaction to the excessive upheaval of the Crisis). This makes the Prophets "social" and "idealistic" and when they come of age, you get an . . .

Awakening wherein Nomads are born to Prophets who neglect them and give them the "austerity" archetype. There are also many Artists around who mentor the new Nomads making them more independent (a reaction to the confomity of the High). This makes the Nomads "austere" and "independent" and when they come of age, you get an . . .

Unraveling wherein Heroes are born to Nomads who protect them and give them the "social" archetype. There are also many Prophets around who mentor the new Heroes making them goal-oriented (a reaction to the lack of direction of the Awakening). This makes Heroes "social" and "pragmatic" and when they come of age, you get a . . .

Crisis wherein Artists are born to Heroes who neglect them and give them the "austerity" archetype. There are also many Nomads around who mentor the new Artists making them group-oriented (a reaction to the fragmentary nature of the Unraveling). This makes Artists "austere" and "communal" and when they come of age, you get . . . another High.

This is too intentional. It sounds almost as if the various generations are cognizant of their role in the cycle and so do their job to mold the next generation to keep the cycle going. Obviously this isn't the case. I don't see why older generations would want to inculcate features they lack into the young. I'm not even sure they can. How do non-introspective Heroes mentor children to become introspective?

Of course, in that last paragraph if the majority of artists that saw the last High are still around in the Crisis, then you might get the 5th turning archetype (a less conformist artist-like generation) rather than an Artist generation.

Well this is certainly true for the short modern turning length. S&H didn't outline a five generation cycle since 1822 though.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Am I to assume that you entered WWI and II as "L"?

No they are C's of course. I showed the list of events for 1940-41 its right there.

Yet all those "interventions" you listed, from 1905 to 1926, were "C"?

All C, as are WW I and WW II.

Is this a reasonable measure of the difference between L and C?

No, because they are all C's.

Yet are you really being consistent? If mere "foreign" intervention is the rule, then WWI and II were interventions, too.

Yep they sure were.

But if the latter were something different from the former to make one L and the other C, what is it?

They weren't different.

Is it hemispheric (invoking the old Monroe Doctrine), Latin America v. Europe and Asia, perhaps? If so, then our post-WWII interventions into Indochina (invoking the new Truman Doctrine), like your "L" Marshall plan, and other non-Latin American countries would have to be "L," too. To be consistent they would be L.

The Marshall Plan wasn't a military invention. The C for military interventions comes from the original Federalist position. Back then it was the Federalists (the conservatives of the era) that were for a standing military. It was their Jeffersonian opposition who didn't want an army. This original difference sets use of military force as a C and opposing it as L. I keep this particular definition all the way down. That is why Nixon's winning the 1968 election on an anti-war platform gets an L. He was taking Jefferson's side.

Now the Marshall Plan has no counterpart with the original Jefferson-Hamilton division. What was it? It's nation building. What is nation building? To me it looks a lot like a welfare program. OK so who was the first to advocate welfare programs, which I will define as the redistribution of wealth from the "haves" to the "have not" by the government? It was the Jacksonian Democrats, who were big advocates for stealing Indian land and selling it to poor whites. Now Schlesinger has the Jacksonians as the liberals of their day. And they did hold most of Jefferson's views on the old issues, they were anti-tariff and anti-central bank, for example. Finally, redistribution of Indian land to white settlers is inconsistent with conservative concepts of natural law, while it is perfectly consistent with liberal concepts of "property is force". Thus I label this original example of wealth redistribution as an L policy. And this type of policy remains L all the way down to today.

In my view the "welfare" aspect of the Marshall Program outweigh it's foreignness. But here is where we can have a difference of opnion. You can argue that it is a foreign intervention and so should be a C. After all I have CIA interventions as C. These aren't strictly military either.

In this case we could look at how did those who called themselves conservatives at the time viewed it? For example, what was Robert Taft's view of the Marshall plan?

Are you getting my drift, or am I off the mark?

You are off the mark.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Is this a reasonable measure of the difference between L and C?

No, because they are all C's.

The Marshall Plan wasn't a military invention. The C for military interventions comes from the original Federalist position.

In my view the "welfare" aspect of the Marshall Program outweigh it's foreignness. But here is where we can have a difference of opnion. You can argue that it is a foreign intervention and so should be a C. After all I have CIA interventions as C. These aren't strictly military either.

In this case we could look at how did those who called themselves conservatives at the time viewed it? For example, what was Robert Taft's view of the Marshall plan?

Herbert Hoover instituted The Marshall Plan, as he had the huge Belgium Relief effort in 1918. Taft coined the term "soft on Communism," and probably shared Hoover's view on the difference between using foreign relief as a weapon of national defense and goodwill (vs. not using it domestically as the "dole").

More importantly is the matter on how to define the L/C terms (which was the point of my post). It appears you consider the positions Jefferson held on foreign policy to be the liberal standard still today. Thus liberalism can be still be defined in Washington's farewell address and Monroe Doctrine. Liberalism essentially embraces an militarily isolationist position, except on matters of social policy.

So defined, I'm having a bit of a problem here. FDR clearly sought to attack the deppression by returning to the war economy efforts of 1917. He said:

• These unhappy times call for the building of plans that rest upon the forgotten, the unorganized but the indispensable units of economic power, for plans like those of 1917 that build from the bottom up and not from the top down, that put their faith once more in the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid.

The Democratic platform of 1932 echoed this exactly. The first words of the platform states, "In this time of unprecedented economic and social distress the Democratic Party declares its conviction that the chief causes of this condition were the disastrous policies pursued by our government since the World War of economic isolation." Further it says, "Those who were responsible for these policies have abandoned the ideals on which the war was won and thrown away the fruits of victory, thus rejecting the greatest opportunity in history to bring peace, prosperity, and happiness to our people." Basically all this talk resulted in a WWI general leading the huge National Recovery Act, a peacetime economy based in wartime ideas of shared sacrifice, and the federal government dictating who builds what and for how much.

This is sort of like a Marshall Plan for the homefront. Only the feds are much much more involved in determining who gets what. Enforcement and the courts then take on a bigger role in the implementation of the Plan. This is nearly analogous to the Little Rock situation in 1956, where the Court determines that this is the law, and then the President sends in the Troops to enforce the law.

Are both of these actions liberalism at work? Or is the idea liberal, but the military-like enforcement conservative?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

]Herbert Hoover instituted The Marshall Plan, as he had the huge Belgium Relief effort in 1918. Taft coined the term "soft on Communism," and probably shared Hoover's view on the difference between using foreign relief as a weapon of national defense and goodwill (vs. not using it domestically as the "dole").

Hoover was a very capable man who had adminstered a similar program after WW I. Truman asked him to run it. Hoover was serving his country. What is more relevant is how did the conservative political leadership view this spending? Did they vote for it? Did they criticise it?

It appears you consider the positions Jefferson held on foreign policy to be the liberal standard still today.

No. I keep the original definitions until a new issue comes a long that forces a redefinition. With the rise of progressism (a new movement that intended to rectify perceived problems that had arisen as a byproduct of industrialization in the late 19th century) there became, in some issues, two "liberal" positions that were opposed to each other. In that case, the older Jeffersonian concept now became labled as a C.

I do tis because conservatives dimly view newfangled ideas, especially when they seek to meddle with the traditional and natural order of things. Classical liberal postions in favor of ideas like free market capitalism had been around long enough to be worthy of some (grudging) respect by conservatives, although they continued to favor high tariffs. And when progressives started pushing for a graduated tax (called to this day progressive taxation), conservatives began to find the classical liberal ideas of small government and low taxes more and more acceptable.

Thus liberalism can be still be defined in Washington's farewell address and Monroe Doctrine. Liberalism essentially embraces an militarily isolationist position, except on matters of social policy.

I consider the Monroe Doctrine as conservative. It is an expression of national power, and so consistent with the Hamiltonian position.

So defined, I'm having a bit of a problem here. FDR clearly sought to attack the deppression by returning to the war economy efforts of 1917. He said:

• These unhappy times call for the building of plans that rest upon the forgotten, the unorganized but the indispensable units of economic power, for plans like those of 1917 that build from the bottom up and not from the top down, that put their faith once more in the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid.

The Democratic platform of 1932 echoed this exactly. The first words of the platform states, "In this time of unprecedented economic and social distress the Democratic Party declares its conviction that the chief causes of this condition were the disastrous policies pursued by our government since the World War of economic isolation." Further it says, "Those who were responsible for these policies have abandoned the ideals on which the war was won and thrown away the fruits of victory, thus rejecting the greatest opportunity in history to bring peace, prosperity, and happiness to our people." Basically all this talk resulted in a WWI general leading the huge National Recovery Act, a peacetime economy based in wartime ideas of shared sacrifice, and the federal government dictating who builds what and for how much.

This is sort of like a Marshall Plan for the homefront. Only the feds are much much more involved in determining who gets what. Enforcement and the courts then take on a bigger role in the implementation of the Plan. This is nearly analogous to the Little Rock situation in 1956, where the Court determines that this is the law, and then the President sends in the Troops to enforce the law.

Are both of these actions liberalism at work? Or is the idea liberal, but the military-like enforcement conservative?

Your view of the National Recovery Act as a domestic version of the Marshall Plan is consistent with my labeling of both as L. What is the other action you refer to?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

1940 L Selective Service Act
1940 C Alien Registration Act of 1940
1941 L Lend-Lease Act
1941 L Atlantic Charter
1941 C WW II begins

This is sort of like a Marshall Plan for the homefront. Only the feds are much much more involved in determining who gets what. Enforcement and the courts then take on a bigger role in the implementation of the Plan. This is nearly analogous to the Little Rock situation in 1956, where the Court determines that this is the law, and then the President sends in the Troops to enforce the law.

Are both of these actions liberalism at work? Or is the idea liberal, but the military-like enforcement conservative?

Ok, I hadn't noticed the L and C next to those acts... Well then, that answers my question really. Liberalism is the idea (ie., FDR's Four Freedoms), and liberalism is the belief in those ideas to the point of implementing a draft, a selling of ships and military hardware per an agreement to help somebody else (the Atlantic Charter) actually enforce those ideas, but not assume the role of enforcer themselves. Ergo, when the shooting started it was then a conservative's role to make the idea happen by force.

Right?

p.s. Little Rock (in 1956, I believe) was Ike ordering the "invasion of Arkansas" to enforce Brown v. Board.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

1940 L Selective Service Act
1940 C Alien Registration Act of 1940
1941 L Lend-Lease Act
1941 L Atlantic Charter
1941 C WW II begins

This is sort of like a Marshall Plan for the homefront. Only the feds are much much more involved in determining who gets what. Enforcement and the courts then take on a bigger role in the implementation of the Plan. This is nearly analogous to the Little Rock situation in 1956, where the Court determines that this is the law, and then the President sends in the Troops to enforce the law.

Are both of these actions liberalism at work? Or is the idea liberal, but the military-like enforcement conservative?

Ok, I hadn't noticed the L and C next to those acts... Well then, that answers my question really. Liberalism is the idea (ie., FDR's Four Freedoms), and liberalism is the belief in those ideas to the point of implementing a draft, a selling of ships and military hardware per an agreement to help somebody else (the Atlantic Charter) actually enforce those ideas, but not assume the role of enforcer themselves. Ergo, when the shooting started it was then a conservative's role to make the idea happen by force.

Right?

Pretty much. When I say that going to war is conservative I mean that is a traditional role for the government that conservatives support. I don't mean to say that conservatives support war. They may be opposed to a war. But if the war is duly declared accrding to the Constitution, they will not object that this is an improper or illegal use of government power. Opposing a Constitutionally declared war as illegitimate because it is in violation of the conditions for a just war, would not be a conservative position.

p.s. Little Rock (in 1956, I believe) was Ike ordering the "invasion of Arkansas" to enforce Brown v. Board

No. It's domestic. One does not need a standing army to quell insurrections, one can rely on the milita, like Washington did with the Whiskey rebellion. Thus it doesn't follow from the Hamiltonian position in favor of a standing army (which encourages its use in foreign adventures).

What I am getting at is this operation cannot automatically be assinged a C as are foreign interventions. It can certainly be, but one has to takin it on a case by case basis.

For something like this I would have to consdier what was the objective for the intervention. If it was simply to keep order (i.e. quelling a riot) or to preserve property rights (breaking a strike) then I would assign it as a C. But if it were to enforce civil rights such as the various Reconstruction Acts, then I would consider it L. Civil rights flowed out of the abolition movement combined with the Jeffersonian concept of promoting democracy (e.g. expanding suffrage). Both are liberal concepts and their combination then yields a liberal concept. Hence Civil Rights becomes an L policy.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Liberalism is the idea (ie., FDR's Four Freedoms), and liberalism is the belief in those ideas to the point of implementing a draft, a selling of ships and military hardware per an agreement to help somebody else (the Atlantic Charter) actually enforce those ideas, but not assume the role of enforcer themselves. Ergo, when the shooting started it was then a conservative's role to make the idea happen by force. Right?

Pretty much. When I say that going to war is conservative I mean that is a traditional role for the government that conservatives support. I don't mean to say that conservatives support war. They may be opposed to a war. But if the war is duly declared accrding to the Constitution, they will not object that this is an improper or illegal use of government power. Opposing a Constitutionally declared war as illegitimate because it is in violation of the conditions for a just war, would not be a conservative position.

Ok, can you translate that *same understanding* into liberal principles, once the shooting starts? Imagine a liberal actually holding to his principles as he is either voting for pro-war bills, making bullets on the homefront or doing the actual shooting. What does he actually do vs. what a conservative would do?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Liberalism is the idea (ie., FDR's Four Freedoms), and liberalism is the belief in those ideas to the point of implementing a draft, a selling of ships and military hardware per an agreement to help somebody else (the Atlantic Charter) actually enforce those ideas, but not assume the role of enforcer themselves. Ergo, when the shooting started it was then a conservative's role to make the idea happen by force. Right?

Pretty much. When I say that going to war is conservative I mean that is a traditional role for the government that conservatives support. I don't mean to say that conservatives support war. They may be opposed to a war. But if the war is duly declared accrding to the Constitution, they will not object that this is an improper or illegal use of government power. Opposing a Constitutionally declared war as illegitimate because it is in violation of the conditions for a just war, would not be a conservative position.

Ok, can you translate that *same understanding* into liberal principles, once the shooting starts? Imagine a liberal actually holding to his principles as he is either voting for pro-war bills, making bullets on the homefront or doing the actual shooting. What does he actually do vs. what a conservative would do?

I don't think I was clear. Basically a liberal or conservative who supports a war will support it. Similarly a liberal or conservative who opposes a war will oppose it. There is no difference between them.

The difference is as follows: a conservative can support a legal war for liberal purposes and still be acting as a conservative. A liberal who supports a legal war for conservative purposes cannot be acting as liberal.

Respect for tradition, including the tradition of the Law and the Constitution is inherently conservative. Everybody is conservative to some degree. Liberals are simply less conservative than conservatives.

That is, liberals reserve fewer areas of life for "conservation" while conservatives tend to reserve larger areas.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The flaw is the issue of this thread. I disagree that the interaction between the times and generation is not significant. I think the experience of being a particular age during momentous periods of history "brands" a generation.

Certainly it seems that way, but since human beings drive the vast majority of historical events the "times" are a product of generational attitudes.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

How important is this old folks telling kids stories? In my own life I don't see this as relevant at all in shaping my own view of the world. On the other hand coming of age in the late 1970's "branded" me as an anti-deficit inflation hawk for life.

Some of the "stories" those old folks told you were the economic theories that you now cherish. Those old folks created the policies that cause the 70s stagflation and theorized how to deal with that situation using state fiscal and monetary policy.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I do not recall different messages being sent by people older than my parents in my youth that shaped me. Do you?

See above. You are a late wave Boomer, and your parents were Silents and the powers that be who shaped the political and economic events of the world you came of age in were G.I.s.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

This is too intentional. It sounds almost as if the various generations are cognizant of their role in the cycle and so do their job to mold the next generation to keep the cycle going. Obviously this isn't the case. I don't see why older generations would want to inculcate features they lack into the young. I'm not even sure they can. How do non-introspective Heroes mentor children to become introspective?

Obviously people aren't really cognizant of their role in the cycle, and my terminology wasn't meant to imply that. As for how older generations instill features they lack -- perhaps mentoring isn't quite the right word. The older generations are much more likely to lead by counterexample. If an older generation counsels the young against certain behavior, they are likely to be implicitly admitting their own faults.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Well this is certainly true for the short modern turning length. S&H didn't outline a five generation cycle since 1822 though.

Nor should they. The generations four positions back are yet to have long enough lifespans to cause a six-part cycle. Lifespans would have to be pretty long in order for such a cycle to occur, even in a short saeculum. Essentially you would need the average member of the generation four positions back who reached adulthood to live until the average member of the new generation was about 15 (to impart complicated cultural concepts). So, with the Homelanders, you would need the life expectancy of Silents who saw the High to be 87 years. Looking at life expectancy tables we can easily see that this is not the case. Roughly half of the Silents who saw the High are already deceased and the oldest Homelander is at most 8 years old. People just don't live long enough to get a six-part cycle going.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Liberalism is the idea (ie., FDR's Four Freedoms), and liberalism is the belief in those ideas to the point of implementing a draft, a selling of ships and military hardware per an agreement to help somebody else (the Atlantic Charter) actually enforce those ideas, but not assume the role of enforcer themselves. Ergo, when the shooting started it was then a conservative's role to make the idea happen by force. Right?

Basically a liberal or conservative who supports a war will support it. Similarly a liberal or conservative who opposes a war will oppose it. There is no difference between them.

The difference is as follows: a conservative can support a legal war for liberal purposes and still be acting as a conservative. A liberal who supports a legal war for conservative purposes cannot be acting as liberal.

Ok, I pointed out the liberal's "purposes" (FDR's Four Freedoms), but what would be "conservative purposes" in your mind, that a liberal would fight for? And, in either venture, what *exactly* constitutes a "legal war"?

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The flaw is the issue of this thread...

Certainly it seems that way...

I think this a little ridiculous to be carrying on two pretty involved yet entirely unrelated debates, with the same poster, at the same time. So I'll butt out for a while till this one concludes.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Some of the "stories" those old folks told you were the economic theories that you now cherish. Those old folks created the policies that cause the 70s stagflation and theorized how to deal with that situation using state fiscal and monetary policy.

You are a late wave Boomer, and your parents were Silents and the powers that be who shaped the political and economic events of the world you came of age in were G.I.s.

This is true, but its an example of generations create history creating generations. I agree there is an interaction between two apart generations, but it isn't necessarily direct. In fact I would argue that it is mediated through policy decisions that help create the "eventful history" that shapes generations. In this way it isn't the old generations "imparting" anything to the younger one. It removes the intentional aspect.

However, by including a role for the two above generation you fall into the same problem S&H did. It is true that GI policy influenced me when I was on the threshold of rising adulthood. They we able to do so because they were only about 40 years older than I, making them 60 & up.

But 300 years ago, policies that could affect me on the cusp of adulthood would be formulated by people in their early 80's & up. They would be to me as the Lost. But the Lost did not craft the policies that influenced me--they were either dead or too old.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

In this case we could look at how did those who called themselves conservatives at the time viewed it? For example, what was Robert Taft's view of the Marshall plan?

Herbert Hoover instituted The Marshall Plan, as he had the huge Belgium Relief effort in 1918. Taft coined the term "soft on Communism," and probably shared Hoover's view on the difference between using foreign relief as a weapon of national defense and goodwill (vs. not using it domestically as the "dole").

Coming on top of the $9,000 million already expended on a variety of postwar programs in aid of Europe, the Marshall Plan appropriation was bound to raise objections in Congress. Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio led a group of economy-minded legislators who were convinced that Marshall aid would aggravate existing shortages in the United States. It would drive up the wholesale price index, they argued, and end in new government controls over the economy. These arguments had more than a passing appeal to a population weary of wartime sacrifices, high taxes, government controls, and items in short supply.

Nor did economic issues exhaust the list of objections. Taft and his allies, who represented an older, isolationist tradition in American diplomacy, also worried lest the Marshall Plan entangle the United States in the affairs of Europe at a time when tensions there could spark another world war. [1]

Another view...

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Herbert Hoover instituted The Marshall Plan, as he had the huge Belgium Relief effort in 1918. Taft coined the term "soft on Communism," and probably shared Hoover's view on the difference between using foreign relief as a weapon of national defense and goodwill (vs. not using it domestically as the "dole").

Taft and his allies, who represented an older, isolationist tradition in American diplomacy, also worried lest the Marshall Plan entangle the United States in the affairs of Europe at a time when tensions there could spark another world war.

• The most interesting confrontation broke out between Taft and Vandenberg. One of many remaining Senate isolationists, Taft attacked the Marshall program for "helping socialism." Rather than claiming that Europe did not need help, that the United States could not afford the assistance, or that Europe would take care of its own problems -- this last being the view I believed Taft really held -- he said he supported the program but only with reduced funding. Instead of $4 billion for the first full year, Taft suggested $3 billion. Again Vandenberg issued the effective riposte: "When a man is drowning 20 feet away, it's a mistake to throw him a 15-foot rope." Taft's motion to cut the first 12-month authorization lost 56 to 31, and the final Senate vote on the Marshall authorization bill passed 69 to 17. The margin of victory (in percentage terms) in the House was slightly higher, 329 to 71. -- Charles P. Kindleberger, Marshall Plan Commemorative Section: In the Halls of the Capitol: A Memoir (From Foreign Affairs, May/ June 1997)

Vandenberg's line about the "man is drowning 20 feet away, it's a mistake to throw him a 15-foot rope," later served as Arthur Schlesinger's take off point in his hit piece on the The New Isolationism during the 1952 presidential campaign. I had read the piece a few years back and thought that Schlesinger did a great job of exposing the wishy washy Taft isolationist position.

Well, as it turns out, twenty years later, in his thesis The Imperial Presidency, Schlesinger did an about face and decided that Taft had been right along. Garry Wills noted this in his review of Schlesinger's book:

• Nonetheless, he has done his homework for this book, in fresh circumstances, and has some new things to say. To get them said, he will gladly unsay what he must. Describing the "uncritical cult of the activist Presidency" that followed World War II, he puts his own name in the list of "uncritical" men. He admits that he (and Acheson and Commager) were wrong, and Taft was right, on Truman's commitment of troops to Korea. He admits his book on Kennedy understated the President's foreknowledge of the Diem coup. These are generous confessions. Since he here means to write like a scholar, he is not afraid to apologize forthrightly. It earns him the hearing he deserves.

Like I have always maintained, liberal Democrats repented of their sins in 1972 (and why they tried to impeach Nixon) and that was the real turning point on the American political scene (not 1964).