Hello, from the two of us. We look forward to a good and wide-ranging discussion over the next three hours. Please post your questions here, and your comments on the ?Comments on Conversations with Authors? topic thread.

Before we start, we?ll try to answer the two most basic questions that many of you may have for us. Do we think the fourth turning has begun? And was 9/11 the catalyst?

Our answer to both is, simply, it?s too early to tell. We?ll know in time, based on coming events?and, especially, the societal response to those events.

Think of the start of a fourth turning as a path that becomes a slide. At a certain point, there?s no going back. You may not know what that point is (or was) until you?re some distance past it. That would have been true in 1773 and 1929. When you reach the counterentropic moment, what we call the regeneracy?as occurred in 1776 and 1932?you can look back and identify the catalyst that led you there.

The 9/11 tragedy certainly catalyzed what in many ways felt like a fourth turning mood in New York City and Washington, D.C.?for awhile. It also prompted a U.S. President to declare, and act upon, a ?Bush Doctrine? that had clear fourth turning aspects. Elsewhere in the U.S., however, 9/11 altered public and private behavior little if at all, following a short-lived reluctance to travel.

As we wrote at the time, and as many readers have remarked, 9/11 came a bit early in the cycle?before Silent influence weakened sufficiently, before Boomers began entering old age with generational imperatives, before Gen Xers began entering midlife as societal anchors, before Millennials began coming of age and asserting themselves politically. In The Fourth Turning, we set 2005 as the time when that generational constellation would make a shift from the third to the fourth turning more likely.

The elections of 2000 and 2004 signaled a possible turnings transition. The first election was (until the end) treated more casually, the second with far more passion on both sides?as though it truly deeply mattered who ran the nation?s public life. In the end, the maps of red states and blue states were almost identical. The first election hinted at, and the second election confirmed, the geographical boundaries of the Boomers? culture war. On domestic as well as foreign issues, America is now primed for a spark to catalyze the new mood far more fundamentally than 9/11 ever did outside the two attacked cities.

The deep divisions between the red and blue zones show that we have a long way to go before we reach the fourth turning?s regeneracy. But?who knows??the next election could do it, if one of the parties (and zones) overwhelms the other with a landslide win, after which a new national consensus could lead to a national resolve.

It?s possible that we won?t have any subsequent event that catalyzes the new mood. If not, then we will drift into it more gradually?and we may indeed look back upon 9/11 as the most logical, albeit not so powerful, catalyst of the fourth turning.

This raises a parallel question we?re often asked: When is the final birth cohort of Millennials, and the start of the new artist archetype, the Homeland Generation. That will depend on what we later determine was the catalyst of the fourth turning. Generational boundaries are typically one to three years before turnings boundaries. If 9/11 was in fact the catalyst, then we already have Homeland toddlers. If the catalyst lies in the future, it all depends on what it comes. If the fourth turning catalyst happens in 2005, then today?s babies are Homeland. Then we?ll have to watch to see how the new generation is treated differently, by families, schools, leaders, and the pop culture. We may not know this generational boundary for a decade or more.

We prefer to stop here and open up the discussion. We?ll try to get to as many of your pre-submitted questions as we can, over the next three hours.

William Strauss and Neil Howe

Dear Bill and Neil,

It's good to hear from you for a lot of reasons. It's good to hear
that your health is better, Bill, and it's good to hear that you're
considering a new update of your generations book.

If you're going to update your Generations book, I'd like to suggest
that you include foreign countries. I believe this would be very
valuable. It's also been a matter of a great deal of discussion in
various threads of this forum.

First, it would be very interesting to understand how England, France
and Germany have been transitioning through generations since WW II.
They're in a crisis period just like we are, and it appears to me
that France is becoming increasing hostile to England and America,
and it would be interesting to understand what's been happening to
them. It seems increasingly likely that France (and probably Spain)
will be at war with England (and America) before it's all over, and
it would be interesting to analyze these countries to understand
what's going on.

China, Taiwan, Korea and Japan are also much discussed in this forum,
and are on the same timeline as America. It would be very
interesting to understand the generational changes in those
countries.

Iraq is really fascinating. For a year and a half I've been mocking
and making fun of journalists, pundits and high-priced analysts on my
web site, because they've all been predicting a civil war or massive
anti-American uprising in Iraq, and I've kept writing that that's
IMPOSSIBLE because they're just entering an awakening period. Iraq
provides an invaluable opportunity to prove the validity of the
generational paradigm by comparing one country TODAY in an awakening
period with one in a crisis period. (And throw in China, which is in
an unraveling period.)

About a year ago I set up a thread, "Objections to Generational
Dynamics," mainly to discuss theory of the generational paradigm. A
lot of people have participated, and in particular Mike Alexander,
Kurt Horner and myself got into some lengthy discussions about how
the generational cycles change, and how long each period is. We
can't answer all the questions just from the six periods covered by
your first Generations book, but with over 200 countries on the
earth, we have lots of other examples we can look at, to nail down
some of these theoretical issues.

I also made a fascinating discovery that I posted in the same thread:
Shamil Basayev (the guy who masterminded the Beslan school massacre),
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden, Vladimir Putin, Hitler, Stalin
and Trotsky were all early Nomads (born 16-25 years after the end of
the previous crisis war) in their respective countries' timelines.
You've pointed out that Nomads have a difficult time, but this finding
indicates that they're very powerful. It's true that Prophets are
the visionaries, but the problem is that each Prophet has a different
vision. It's the Nomads that choose among the different visions and
implement them, indicating that Nomads are a lot more powerful than
Prophets.

By studying the Generations in other countries, especially some of
the Muslim countries, we can gain a lot of very valuable information
about what's going on in the world today. This is actually an
updated version of the project that I proposed to you when I
contacted you a year and a half ago. The dream project is to create
a "world model" that includes all the regions of the world, their
fault lines, generational timelines, and other information. I've
done a lot of work on creating that model, but there's still a lot
more to do. A new international generations book would provide a lot
of valuable input.

There are many wars going on in the world today, but there's only one
crisis war: The Darfur genocide. However, within the last week, it
appears possible that C?te d'Ivoire is just about to tip over into a
crisis war, which will make it the second one in the world today, and
the Netherlands of all places seems to be melting down. It's beginning
to look like one crisis war after another is going to break out in the
next few months and years, leading to the "clash of civilizations"
world war. That's why an international generations book would be so
valuable that I think even your publishers might agree.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

First I want to thank 2BOOMERS for putting this together!

I think your opening post was very nicely, if diplomatically put. Could you give more specifics on how the first wave of each generation is handling the transition to it's new phase?

For example, I see lots of Atari Wave Xers "settling down", but I don't see them going "cautious", per se.

My question: it's argued that immediately previous 4th turnings have been left-leaning / progressive leaning / helpful to the "little guy".

Is this a natural tendency in the cycle, or could we have a right-leaning / conservative leaning / harmful to the "little guy" 4th turning?

IOW, the tearing down of the previous crisis gains occurs during a turning other than the Unravelling?

Thanks.

John, the only question I see here is whether any update of a Generations book would include foreign generations. Apart from perhaps a brief discussion about a few nations that appear to be on (or only slightly behind) the American rhythm, and a few others that do not, we expect any update to be purely about American generations--like the original book.

It's by no means clear that we can publish an update. That's a decision for the publisher, not us.

W.S.

Per Sean's question, about Generation X settling into its new role:

The gradual aging of Gen Xers, from childless singles to married couples with children, is changing their lifestyles, cultural choices, and politics. Childless single Gen Xers in their 20s are the nation's most liberal voters, while marrieds with kids are the most conservative. In the recent election, the emergence of "security moms" brought a new tone to the public discussion. Educators report that Gen Xers are fierce child protectors, in PTAs of elementary schools. Among Gen-X culture creators, we're starting to see a split, between the continued search for the X-treme and dazzling new high-tech films (and games) for kids.

Ever since the start of the 2004 election cycle, there has been much talk about the rise of a new activism that heavily involves the Internet. Of course, MoveOn.Com became an important organization. And of course, the Dean movement became a phenomenon. Joe Trippi wrote a book called The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. A new book just came out called The Power of Many, and it was about people using the Internet in a more social way, rather than a purely commercial way, as tried during the 1990s. It talks of people using the Internet and social software to build new communities, and catalyze collective action, and for new, community forms of commerce. Undoubtedly, it put a heavy dent in the 2004 election cycle, and now the Howard Dean machine is running at least 200 candidates. This is a largely youth (Xer and Millie) run organization, and these Deaniacs (who are commonly described as being Millie aged) are described as being very energetic and hopeful. It is clear that this kind of organization will only grow.

What do you see the generational and historical impact of these technologies and ways of organizing are? What do you see for the 2008 election cycle with this technology? Will it become a part of the next civic order?

After 9/11, you described young people as having a sense of solidarity far beyond anything you have ever seen, even with the GIs during their coming of age trials. Do you still agree? What does this mean for the Crisis?

In Generations, you described the Boomer coming of age experience as the "most emotionally intense and culturally influential youth rebellion in American history." Does this mean we will have the "most emotionally intense and culturally influential" Crisis leadership in American history? If so, or if not, what are the implications of this?

Hi, this is Neil. I'm temporarily relegated to the pseudonym "Saeculum". But this too will pass.

Let me answer Barbara's question. There is, really, no such thing as a rightwing or leftwing 4T. Or at least not in any 4t that we've had or that is likely to turn out well. Typically, the winning political formula in the 4T takes elements from both ideological extremes; it cuts crosswise across the conventional stereotypes of the 3T. From the left, it takes the social equality, rebuilding the social middle, the aggressive use of big public institutions (government). From the right, it takes the belief in convention, order, hierarchy, and social unity.

--Neil

Let me respond to Tim's questions for us on the "comments" topic thread.

He asks if we believe generations are shorter today than in earlier saeculi. From the Gilded forward, generations have ranged in length from 17 to 24 cohorts, and we don't expect a change in that. If the human lifespan extends, then it's possible that phases of life may lengthen. If so, generations may also lengthen. In any event, that won't happen soon. We expect Millennials to be another 17 to 24 year generation.

Tim asks about the 1984 boundary between the second and third turning. We discussed this at some length in the book. The 1984 Reagan landslide was the true "morning in America" moment. The two political parties, and their ideological factions, had reached a consensus that institutional life was rotten and that individualism should reign supreme. Millennial nurture was well underway. Tim asked about the Iranian hostage crisis and the Challenger explosion, but those aren't the kinds of events one would expect to separate a second from a third turning.

Tax cuts fit the mindset, and are of use, to three generations: Silent, Boomers, and Gen Xers. If government is rotten, why pay for it? If individuals make better choices than institutions, who should get the money? And we should not forget that the modern tax revolt era was initiated by two G.I.s, Howard Jarvis and Ronald Reagan, with a preseasonal California initiative known as Proposition 13.

Thanks for answering my first question, Neil.

Another question I have pertains to the future of Social Security? Do you see Bush reforming SS by privatizing it instead of restricting it (means testing benefits, reducing the avenues for qualification, adjusting taxing percentages, etc, allocating more governmental subsidy)? Or, do you see a mixture of the two strategies? Thanks.

Tom Wolfe has been as astute a cultural observer as any with Electric Coolaid Acid test being the chronicle of the awakening and Bonfire of the Vanities being an unraveling classic.

He is now taking on the sexual revolution with his new novel and talking about a "Great Relearning." Do you think this could be a harbinger of a seasonal return to convention and order?

Good to see you back, Bill. It's been a while since I've posted, too.

One thing that has been ignored in many discussions here including this one, but not in all of the Fourth Turning discussion board, is peak oil. It seems to me that this would be the Fourth Turning catalyst or regeneracy. According to many observers, the peak of oil production, and hence the time at which production starts to decline, could be as early as right now or as late as 2074, with the mean somewhere around 2008-2012. When this happens, shortages and high prices will appear, and this could really jolt the economy. Sure sounds like it could be the catalyst or regeneracy. It seems to me that if peak oil is the catalyst, then there will be some severaly dislocating years while we try to find other sources of energy and other ways to live, but the fact that this occurs at a Fourth Turning suggests a solution will be found, as this is the time when society can change dramatically. A few years ago, Mr. Strauss said that the response to an oil crisis could be different than in the 1970s, and more martial. Is the invasion of Iraq such a response?

By the way, I have used the Fourth Turning framework to create a Periodic Table of the Presidents, as though they were chemical elements. I have the table (transposed for fitability on a web page) at http://jimvb.home.mindspring.com/Presidents.htm . This says that Bush is a "Nero" president, like Hoover and Buchanan - does not do much while a crisis starts (states seceding, markets crashing, oil prices going sky high), and that the next president will be the next Crisis President, to be elected in 2008. This says the catalyst may occur before then. And note that while there can be three or four 1T, 2T, or 3T presidents, there can be only one Fourth Turning or Crisis President. This is because people don't change leaders in a crisis.

The new internet activism is very much a Gen-X-led, Millie-propelled phenomenon. Howard Dean's "meetups" may presage the Millennial politics of the future.

It's important to separate Millennial organizations from those (like MoveOn.org and Rock the Vote) that target them but do not themselves reveal Millennial characteristics. As I recall, MoveOn.org was organized by two Boomers to resist those who would not "move on" from Bill Clinton's various scandals, and that's not a back story that bodes well for it being as influential with Millennials as with older people.

There's no question that Millennials will digitalize government in a variety of ways, from elections to civil service to homeland security to the day to day administrative tasks of federal agencies. For them, digital computational and communications devices are the equivalent of what pencil and paper (or, at best, a Royal typewriter that often jammed its keys) were to Boomers, at the same age.

Shemsu asks about Millennial solidarity. It definitely exists, but I wouldn't attribute more than a small portion of it to 9/11.

Will Boomers provide the "most emotionally intense and culturally influential" crisis leadership in our history? This all depends on how Boomers play the script they'll be handed, of course--but, as they enter old age, it's better to anticipate the "most spiritually intense" leadership Americans will have seen in their lifetimes.

Barbara:

Let me answer another question of yours, this one from Monday about how to reform Social Security without getting us all further into debt. It's a good quetions. Transition to personal accounts is advocated for many different reasons. Some people just want property ownership and the power to choose their own broker etc and couldn't care less about how it's funded (a common libertarian position). Others advocate personal accounts as a means of avoiding the enormous unfunded liabilities that accompany any form of pay-as-you-go (paygo) funding. They insist on personal property ownership mostly as a means to make sure that Congress doesn't double count the money it's taking in. They typically don't care much whether people have a lot of choice about investing. But they do insist that the transition be funded.

What does "funded" mean? It means that personal accounts are funded by new revenue or new contributions--i.e., that we don't divert current tax revenue that simply means the growth "owned funds" will cause an equal growth in public debt. The diversion-type schemes are called "carve out" personal accounts, because the tax rate remains unchanged; the reform simply "carves" some of the revenue out and gives it to the personal accounts. The truly funded schemes are called "add on" personal accounts. I am an advocate of the add-on approach. And having talked recently to many on Capitol Hill, I think there is growing support for this approach on all sides.

Where will the add-on revenue come from? One approach would be to simply add an extra 2 or 3 percent of payroll tax on top of the current FICA; the excess (with a govt. match for low-income folks) would go to your account. For those who don't like higher payroll deductions, another idea, recently floated by Larry Kotlikoff of BU, is to institute a sales tax to relieve part of the burden of the current FICA, which would then make room natually for the new contribution. A national sales tax has many advantages: it favors savings, it favors later retirement (relative to a higher payroll tax), and it takes back some wealth from the old and the rich (again, which a payroll tax hike does not) and thus has a favorable generational tilt.

--Neil

My apologies to Hermione Granger. I thought I was answering Tim Walker's questions in my earlier post, but I was answering hers. My printout was a little confusing.

To answer Tim's question: What will the nature of the Crisis be? We can all see aspects gathering. The War on Terrorism. Federal debt (much of it foreign-held), looming Boomer retirement, and the decline of the dollar. Uncertainty about the nation's oil sources. The redzone-bluezone culture wars, and deepening regional bitterness. The widening rich-poor gap. A fourth turning would take several, though not necessarily all, of these factors, and perhaps some others I haven't mentioned--and will combine them into one giant storm. Exactly what that storm will involve is unknowable.

Could there be civil war? That's less likely than acts of secession. Neil and I have always believed that Boomers are capable of "reinventing" the US geography at alarming speed, if the issue ever gains traction. Could we see a bluezone-redzone national divorce along the lines of the Czech Republic and Slovakia? Possibly, but not necessarily. Here as with issues of war and peace, it all depends on how each generation handles the script it's been given by history.

Might we have a "multi-tiered" crisis? Yes. It's not likely that the crisis will be only one thing--for example, the war on terror. You describe "cultural polarization," "excessive deficit spending," and "world building with undefined bounds" as three possible "tiers," and you're right about that. See my response to Tim, above.

Is the WOT a 3T Not-War?

If one separates Iraq from the WOT, is Iraq (to date) a Not-War like that in the Balkans.

If we go on to "greater" things such as some in Washington dream will Not-War turn into a War in the 4T sense?

This is to answer SteveM_55 on Tom Wolfe.

What is it with Silent Generation authors (women and men--from Erica Jong to John Updike) in their lifelong obsession with sex and with youth having sex? I ascribe it to growing up in a 4T and coming of age in a 1T, an era when they had to fit in fast, make permanent decisions at an early, and never had time to sow wild oats. The result is a generation that seems constantly longing to some sort of catharsis they never "got" the first time around. To the Silent, youth will forever remain some sort of combination of Boomer assertiveness and Xer free-agency. They simply don't get Millennials at all.

That said (that was enough!), I have not actually read Wolfe's book, but I have read enough Wolfe in my life to imagine what it's like. And yes I too really liked his awakening-era books. One of them, the one you mentioned, describes an experience with Ken Kesey in Monterey CA that I actually participated in back in 1968. He got it about right.

I am intrigued by your references to a "great relearning." As you may know, this is (I believe word for word) the central lesson of a 2000 book by Francis Fukuyama called "The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order." Fukuyama (a Boomer) believes that the West is currently recovering from a major shock to cultural and norms norms (the 60s and 70s) and the full recovery will take another generation. He draws a bit on historical parallels and (along with Robert Putnam) makes certain points about Millennials that are quite in line with our own.

--Neil

Evening gentlemen. I have a question regarding technology, revolving around a pet idea of mine from this thread that started as a discussion of (and including data I collected on) the current generational alignments in Congress:

http://fourthturning.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=717

Now then.... In T4T you say that technology plays no factor in the process of generations and turnings because - like everything else - it just depends how the technology is reacted to.

I generally agree with you in this respect, but perhaps you don't even realize that you build your whole concept on the opposing premise. You describe this on page 9 (T4T) in reference to a newfound attraction in the middle of the last millennium to "linearism". But there was one piece of technology alone that allowed humanity to break free of the bonds that were strangling our potential and propel us into the "modern" age that reached full force with the Renaissance and the Reformation. That one piece of technology was the printing press.

Think about it. Can the same claims you make with regard to all other inventions and technology apply to moveable type? It more than anything or anyone allowed the common man the chance to think and dream and... react in ways he never did before. What was special about The War of the Roses and the Protestant Reformation that allowed these events to become the Prime Mover of the new saeculum? Answer: the printing press, which allowed man to print the bible (and these events) into the written word for mass consumption. You even admit as much on that page, but you gloss over it quickly, while I believe it needs more attention.

Ironically (or not), your dates mirror the start of the Print Age. Gutenberg began building his invention in 1437, while you start the first half-saeculum in 1436. The printing of the Bible on the new press was completed in 1455, while the first Crisis began in England 1459. The first press in England was established in 1476, and the War of the Roses Crisis ended in 1487. A century later, Shakespeare foreshadowed the new High with his first play in 1593 a year before you place the end of the Armada Crisis in 1594. It is only at this point after six turnings that people begin to take the press for granted and it becomes "technology" in the terms you describe.

If the printing press could change man from non-reactive to reactive, is there any other invention that could change the course of the saeculum in a similar way? Mike Alexander has insinuated (in that thread) that something dramatic must have happened around 1820 to cause the saeculum's turnings to shorten so dramatically. But the Transcendental Awakening lasted 22 years by your count, ending in 1844 - hardly groundbreaking. But what came next was not just the departure from 20+ year turnings, but also the regular rhythm of the saeculum itself. In just 16 years the most turbulent Unraveling we've ever experienced had ended, followed by the shortest and most brutal Crisis.

Could something have caused people to over-react in a way they were unused to, making the cycle "over-spin" in a freakish yang to Gutenberg's ying? I'd say so, considering the fact that the telegraph was invented the very year the Unraveling began, in 1844. Did people merely react to the telegraph like other technologies, or did they wield it as the first "terrible swift sword" of the Civil War, to spread news and gossip at a previously unheard-of pace?

I think our reaction to certain technologies has a power that you may have underestimated. Does any technology cause "the end of history" and the end of the saeculum? No, I don't think so. But how we wield some powerful technologies may throw a huge wrench in the works, to impart momentum where there was none, or cause the saeculum to move faster, or even skip a beat.

Might you reassess your ideas on technology just a little, based on this analysis? I can't help but think how 9/11 may have been so much more of a possible catalyst for us that it might otherwise have been, had we not watched it unfold in front of us live - and repeated thousands of times since - with live video streaming to every TV and computer desktop for people to react to.

You asked about George W. Bush and the 3T/4T transition.

In his first term, his foreign policy was 4T, but his domestic policy was entirely 3T.

He was not elected by anything close to a landslide large enough to indicate a regeneracy, with the potential for reconstruction of civic trust, public sacrifice, and revitalization of the nation's institutional life.

It's not just that he's faced with a 3T political environment, but the blue zone appears to be overwhelmingly 3T in its intensely distrustful opposition to the president. If some of the blue zone states decide to take action (beyond just holding up judicial appointments), especially extralegal action, than we'll move into a 4T situation.

We should watch to see the blue zone reaction to the first major "spending my political capital" moment by the President. What will be the nature of their fury, resistance, subsequent action, and success with that action? That, combined with events involving the war on terror and homeland security, could push the nation into the fourth turning.

To the authors:

Are either of you aware of any academic research testing or extending your theory? Thank you.

Is the war on terror a "not-war"? Or the war in Iraq? Could either be part of the catalyst for the fourth turning?

Were either world wars "not-wars" when we weren't fully engaged in them? Was the American Revolution a "not-war" between Concord-Lexington and the battles between massed armies?

It all depends on future events.

The war in Iraq is far less likely than the war on terror (and homeland security) to be the catalyst of the fourth turning.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Is the WOT a 3T Not-War?

If one separates Iraq from the WOT, is Iraq (to date) a Not-War like that in the Balkans.

If we go on to "greater" things such as some in Washington dream will Not-War turn into a War in the 4T sense?

Indeed, I'd like to add to this.

Though I am open to the idea the 9/11 was the trigger/catalyst, I think it is even more likely that the post-9/11 era, up to very recently, has a lot in common with the 1917-1920 period (with the obvious exception that this time 'round it's happening much closer to the end of the turning). In other words, a very intense 3T reaction.

You have a war fought with a lot of enthusiasm but without much consensus or follow-through. We have a partially-structural change in the federal govenment (War Labor Board/ DepHomeSec). We've had our own A. Mitchell Palmer running around rounding up potential foreign terrorists. Though we didn't have any actual flu pandemic, everyone has been worried about chicken flus and SARS. We have "Wilsonianism", even if executed by a Prophet this time. And we have a growing backlash against immigrants welling up ready to explode.

Furthermore, the Great Greenspan Credit Expansion and the Housing Bubble just scream "third turning" to me. And there's more.

But instead of a desire to "return to normalcy" this time, due to the slightly different saecular location I think we're looking at "cascade to crisis" cutting this period short instead.

There are of course other comparisons to the "brooding" post-Bleeding-Kansas mood that have been made here on the board.

Any thoughts??

Good evening Strauss and Howe. I am very pleased you are answering questions tonight.

I would like to know what you think of Bush and how he sees himself as a "Transformation" President. Could the demise of the Democratic party be a sign that America is quickly uniting under a one party coalition...signaling the dawn of the Fourth Turning? Or is it possible that if everything gets much worse, the grounds for the Republicans getting total blame for everything will lead to another realignment in 2008? Signaling a true resurgency!

Do you think either of those scenarios are more likely than the other?

This is answer Jim Blowers.

I've worked around the edges of energy policy (since the grad-school in the mid-70s) to know that you should always be very careful about energy resource predictions. People talk a lot about "reserves" of this or that resource, but in fact no one really know what will a procurable at what price and with what long-term technological response. Elasticities are critical here. If a huge price hike triggers little response on either consumption (less) or production (more) for years, then you've got a real big problem. And yes this could certainly add to the events that would catalyze a 4T. btw, for fair disclosure, I have invested in an energy ETF for the past year and have found it a good decision.

I have not seen your presidential typology. I will check it out. Your comment on how there can only be one "great" 4T leader is provocative. You may be right. I would have to think about it. Last time, clearly, no one rivaled FDR. In the Civil War and immediate aftermath, one could make an argument for Grant--but I'll grant your point. In the Am Rev, harder to say. GW, of course; but leaders from other generations (from Ben and Sam Adams to Tom Jefferson et al) all played critical roles. The English Glorious Rev Crisis had both King William and Queen Anne (whig and tory) in equal measure.

What about Bush? Hard to say. I find it hard to agree that Bush will someday be lumped with Buchanan or Hoover, presidents known to posterity for simply not responding to new forces of history. Bush--love him or hate him--has responded big time. Just think of the Patriot Act or the "preemptive" Bush Doctrine, probably the single biggest redefinition of American geopolitical strategy in a couple of generations. Indeed, one of the reasons many people hate him is for his "radical" responses to challenges they simply don't real are real or urgent. We'll need to find some new category to put him in.

--Neil