To the three questions from DKG 1962:

(1) Yes we sometimes call these late 50s cohorts (aka the "Madonna cohorts") a high pathology subgroup simply because, well, that's what the data tell us. But keep in mind that late cohorts of a Prophet archetype have often produced our nation's greatest leaders. FDR was a late-wave Prophet. As was Abraham Lincoln. As was Sam Adams. These often become the leaders who have completely broken with the "old regime" mindset without however losing the passion to reform and uplift.

(2) What are the early 60s cohorts doing now. Well, they're having families and kids and settling down. Many are becoming young fogies, deliberately turning away from the edge and the risk they cultivated in their 20s and early 30s. Gen X has the most conspicuous political "family gap" (singles vote Democrat, married vote GOP) of any generation--and this is largely a gap that separates late wave from early wave Xers. Most of their new political stars have been Republican. This year, we have three new Senators born in 1961. One, the rising Democratic star Barack Obama, has been justly highlighted by the media for his plainspoken charisma. Two others, both Republicans, have as yet received little attention--David Vitter, who stunned everyone by winning over 50% of the vote in Louisiana against *two* Democrats, and John Thune, who unseated a Senate majority leader (Tom Daschle) for the first time in fifty years.

(3) I'm not sure I agree about the lack of experiments that are ready to be played on the national level. What's the number one "model" for Social Security personal accounts? It's the federal employee "thrift plan," introduced in the 1980s, along with America's growing experience with SEPs, 401-k's, IRAs, etc that really are a 3T development. And what about health-care reform? Again look at the FEHBP, an 80s-era innovation for federal employees, or the "health savings account," based on the owned-account options for various nonhealth benefits that have recently been offered by many large corporations.

--Neil

Originally Posted by William Strauss

As Gen Xers marry and have children, they become much more politically conservative. Watch out for that one, Democrats.

I have a feeling that X'ers will get a lot more conservative politically as they settle down and form families. I have a feeling X'ers who are married and have childern were apart from the Silent the biggest supporters of the Conservative Howard government at the last federal election in Australia.

Let me respond to BoomerXer's questions from the "comments" thread.

Will political parties reconfigure over the next dozen years? That's not likely. Millennials will support institutional parties--note the near-total disinterest collegians showed to Ralph Nader and other third party candidates in this year's election.

Has the family been irrevocably changed? There have been huge changes in American families (most notably the rise of two-worker households and the use of day-care to raise small children), and households that are not "families" by the usual Census definition, over the past forty years. This has been a major propellant of all the talk about "family values"--and of the recent culture war.

The extent of these recent changes in the family may help explain public resistance to same-sex marriage. In the coming fourth turning, we may see a consolidation of recent trends in the family--and a deferral of anything fundamentally new until the next second turning. If this happens, gays may have to wait until around 2040 to have much prospect for success on the marriage front. By then, Millennials will dominate American politics, and Millennials are overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage. (Whether they will be once they form families themselves remains to be seen.)

In this respect, the gay experience resembles what happened with women's rights before and after the Civil War--which put a hard brake on the advance of any social issue that did not involve emancipation, a brake that wasn't lifted until the next second turning.

Public schools are better than most people think. Then again, I'm biased, because my wife is on the school board of a very large, high-achieving public school district. I do a lot of work with theater students in public and private schools, and neither has an edge on the other.

No Child Left Behind is a lengthy topic, but to summarize: It's excellent for the inner city, good for kids not far below or above the median, a bit stifling for high achievers, and problematic for kids (and schools) who fail. Some aspects of the law are producing unexpected and unhelpful outcomes, in the school district here--but there are administrators in low-income areas who swear by it. What's interesting about this law is that it's widely supported by African-American educators, but Bush's role in enacting it delivered him zero additional black votes in the 2004 election.

Originally Posted by Saeculum

To Bob Butler:

I like your "two spirals" perspective. One, a sort of timeless and localized cycle of social entropy and disintegration with ageold challenges of poverty and dislocation and disease. Another, a globalized movement triggered by a religious awakening--the Islamist Awakening, to be specific, which took off around 1979 and is still with us through the Islamic belt of nations (though it may now be beginning to subside--see the new post-Prophet youth generation arising in Iran and the post-Soviet Turkic Republics)...

--Neil

I suspect I may be over reacting here, perhaps reading something into your comment. I can agree there is "a sort of timeless and localized cycle of social entropy and disintegration with ageold challenges of poverty and dislocation and disease." One can make a case that the First Spiral is not a modern problem coming to a head and signaling pending crisis, but an age old biological imperative. Whenever population begins to exceed necessary resources, we get a Darfur. The modern pattern of international intervention started by Bush 41 in Somalia, extended through the Clinton administration, and faltering now in Darfur might be regarded as a futile attempt to fight human nature. Genocide, ethnic cleansing, mass rapes and political famines might be regarded as an inevitable part of human existence. It has always been so. It might perhaps always be so.

Except I've read such arguments written by southern slave owners in the years leading up to the Civil War. It seems that all great civilizations are built upon a cornerstone of slavery, and so it shall forever be. I note that things that shall forever be can change during crisis. If they are to be addressed, that is the time to address them.

And in a world of terrorist delivery of weapons of mass destruction, I'm not sure the developed world can afford to allow the Third World to sink into chaos. There might be both moral and pragmatic reasons to tilt at the windmill of the First Spiral.

On the other hand, thus far the attacks on the West are originating from the Second Spiral, from the fallout of the Islamic Awakening. It might be argued that our attention for the moment might best be directed there.

Still, I watched Clinton's systematic attempts to get the international community into the habit of intervening at major First Spiral flare ups with great interest. I think he saw the First Spiral and was striving hard to defuse it early. The inaction at Darfur troubles me.

Let me respond to Tristan:

I agree. The Great Patriotic War in Russia was the mother of all 4Ts. It may go beyond to include the late 40s; it certainly goes back to include the rise of Stalin in the mid-20s when the internationalist Revolution was hijacked by xenophobia, antisemitism, nationalism, and the growing cult of mother Russia. The real question, I think, is whether the 1917 revolution was part of that 4T or not. In recent months, with a number of intelligence study groups here in DC, we've been looking closely at Russia and all the post-Soviet Republics. They are all deep 3T (started late 80s, or as late as the breakup), and the new crop of youth ("Generation Nyet") decidedly Xer-like.

I would end China's 4T on a triumphal note, in 1949. The Great Leap forward was indeed a social, political, and demographic catastrophe. But it was not 4T.

Japan is a very difficult question. Let me finesse this one.

Yes, I agree, there is an Islamic Awakening. I put it zero hour (with turning point events Iran, Afganistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia) in 1979. It should be just about over now, and there is evidence of a new youth generation emerging.

--Neil

Thanks to all, for making this such a good discussion. Let me encourage you to post additional comments on what we all covered here--but please do it on the "Comments on Conversations with Authors" topic thread.

We'll do this again before too much time passes.

My best wishes to everyone.

William Strauss

I had a great time as well. Nice questions. And I could sense, as I read them, that this is a community that has spent a lot of time thinking through their implications. It was a pleasure to hear from you all and engage. Like Bill, I look forward to doing this again.

--Neil

Thank you "2BOOMERS" !!!

Yes, THANK YOU!

It's been very enlightening.

A belated thanks to the authors. Does anyone know when they'll do another Q and A session?

Originally Posted by Harv

A belated thanks to the authors. Does anyone know when they'll do another Q and A session?

They say they will, but I don't think a time frame was given.

Bill and Neil, It's good to see you posting. I haven't been too active here lately (recovering from surgery) and just discovered this thread. I just finished by fourth cycles book, this one on politics rather than economics

I have been wondering whether 2004 will turn out to be a critical election, that is, the next entry in this series 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932, 1968 and 2004 which I first read about in a book by Kevin Phillips. In my new book I expand upon Schlesinger's liberal/conservative cycle as a political "projection" of the saeculum in much the same way as the Stock Cycle is a financial projection or the Kondratiev cycle is an economic projection.

Dear distinguished authors,

While my inclination is to agree with the theory whole-heartedly, one problem stands out in my mind at the moment. (Others will come later.) The Consciousness Revolution (Awakening) appears to be an anomaly in that Boomers (Prophets) were not the leaders of it.

The initiator leaders were such people as Martin Luther King, the Beatles and other rock musicians, Jane Fonda, etc., while such men as Jerry Falwell led the conservative charge. Who among Boomers was the equivalent of a Martin Luther, an Oliver Cromwell, a Jonathan Edwards or a William Jennings Bryan during their respective awakenings?

It’s not that I doubt the theory, but it is my suspicion that modern times have rushed the cycle and have caused certain archetypes to have to fill in for one another. If Boomers were not the real instigators of the Awakening, then is it possible that the Grey Champion role might actually belong to another generation?

Originally Posted by JDW

Dear distinguished authors,

While my inclination is to agree with the theory whole-heartedly, one problem stands out in my mind at the moment. (Others will come later.) The Consciousness Revolution (Awakening) appears to be an anomaly in that Boomers (Prophets) were not the leaders of it.

The initiator leaders were such people as Martin Luther King, the Beatles and other rock musicians, Jane Fonda, etc., while such men as Jerry Falwell led the conservative charge. Who among Boomers was the equivalent of a Martin Luther, an Oliver Cromwell, a Jonathan Edwards or a William Jennings Bryan during their respective awakenings?

It?s not that I doubt the theory, but it is my suspicion that modern times have rushed the cycle and have caused certain archetypes to have to fill in for one another. If Boomers were not the real instigators of the Awakening, then is it possible that the Grey Champion role might actually belong to another generation?

JDW,

I tried to tackle the opposite probelm in my Sept. 17th post HERE. A few saecula ago the Prophets were considerably older during Awakenings, and especially Crises. In fact, regarding 4T's, they would've been so old that it creates a problem in my mind regarding the theory. The Mult-Modal Saeculum is my response to that perceived problem.

I definintely think the cycle is compacting. I make a case that long ago Nomads were at least as likely to be Great Crisis Leaders as Prophets. Perhaps things will compact in such a way that the Artist's role may change in 4T's. I doubt it, but who knows??

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by JDW

...William Jennings Bryan....

JDW, ....

Heh, heh! Never fails! :wink:

Interesting thread, Sean. Thanks for referring me to it. You put a lot of thought in there, and it's going to take me a while to digest it. My first impression, though, is that you're on the right track. Perhaps the Strauss-Howe theory is analogous to Newtonian physics, which was eventually replaced with the General Theory. I'll try to make further comments to your hypotheses under your topic, so as not to clutter this thread.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I haven't been too active here lately (recovering from surgery)

Mike, I hope you are recovering well.

Originally Posted by Barbara

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I haven't been too active here lately (recovering from surgery)

Mike, I hope you are recovering well.

Indeed !!!

I have a question for the authors! Is this Bill Strauss circa 1971? I found this as a "Lafayette Class of 1971" pic of a "Bill Strauss" goofing around in London.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

I have a question for the authors! Is this Bill Strauss circa 1971? I found this as a "Lafayette Class of 1971" pic of a "Bill Strauss" goofing around in London.

No, that's Gene Shallit as a young man.

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

I have a question for the authors! Is this Bill Strauss circa 1971? I found this as a "Lafayette Class of 1971" pic of a "Bill Strauss" goofing around in London.

No, that's Gene Shallit as a young man.

Gene Shallit was an ugly fro'ed dude by 1971. :wink:

What are the differences between the Civic waves? The differences between the Idealist and Boomer waves are known not only because it is well documented in your text, but because it is within the living memory of many people, unlike that of the GIs.

What were the differences between the GI first and last waves, besides the last wave being more orderly and educated? How will the 1980s Millies be different from the 1990s cohorts socially, politically, and culturally? Thanks.

Its been awhile since this "Conversation" thread has been created. Do the authors have any other words of wisdom as to where we are in the 3T/4T transition?

Perhaps they'll visit us again soon? I hope so.

On that subject, do the authors have any regular columns or blogs in which they regularily discuss generational issues?

Originally Posted by takascar2

Its been awhile since this "Conversation" thread has been created. Do the authors have any other words of wisdom as to where we are in the 3T/4T transition? Perhaps they'll visit us again soon? I hope so.

A mere tit for a tat, my dear, if ya git mah drift (teh, hee hee hee)?

8) , eh?

Originally Posted by William Strauss

Millennials show signs of wanting to get behind a Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, and if the party stresses economics and military issues, and gets more mainstream on social and cultural issues (meeting the red zone halfway), the youth vote could be a powerful propellant, as it was for FDR in 1932 and 1936.

The Democratic party doesn't have a problem with being socially and culturally mainstream enough. The party is TOO socially and culturally mainstream. It doesn't leave any options for the cultural liberals to vote for (unless they vote for a Green or Libertarian, and too many people aren't going to do that because they'll never win, which in turn will actually make "they'll never win" a self-fulfilling prophecy and assure that the third-party candidates lose).

The Democrats are a conservatove party on gay rights. Democrats in Rhode Island managed to keep sodomy laws on the books until 1998. Bill Clinton always believed that a marriage was a contract between a man and a woman. Gay activists said they'd make the nineties for gay rights what the sixties were for the rights of African-Americans despite Clinton's unbudging nature, but Clinton didn't let them and only in the decade after the nineties are we seeing real progress (aided largely by the Supreme Court). Clinton as a matter of fact signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which has conservatives beside themselves with joy. Howard Dean had it right when he said the Democratic party's official stance is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The Democrats also supported school uniforms. Clinton loved the thought of putting every K-through-12-er in a polo shirt with the school insignia on it so much that he wrote and sent out a booklet on how to implement uniforms in your public school. See all those soccer moms voting for Democrats who gush over the thought of their children being uniformed on your block?

In addition to supporting school uniforms, Clinton also supported curfews. He praised curfews as a great way to instill "order". If you look at this issue, Democrats will seem more conservative than most teens! I mean, look at the Democrats in your city council's meetings talking about how wonderful curfews are and how much they want a curfew for their city. The same people who are supporting school uniforms. When we look at the Democrats' and the Republicans' reaction to curfews, it feels as if we're not being given a choice.

If you're male and under 26, which means half of Millennials, you're probably concerned about the draft. And yet so far all the attempts to pass a bill that abolished the Selective Service have failed, even the ones in the seventies and eighties when the donkeys accounted for the majority in Congress. Bill Clinton said the Selective Service will "rekindle the spirit of democracy". If you want to see what's really on that man's mind, google for his comments on why he kept the Selective Service Act in place. I'm ineligible for being drafted and even I oppose that too-conservative-for-me act.

Republicans and Democrats alike are against drug legalization. The Democrats, as usual, are being conservative on cultural issues. They're trying to stay so mainstream that they alienate everyone who isn't mainstream. If the Democrats were half as liberal as you imagine, marijuana would have been legalized decades ago, when the Democrats held the majority. Like gay rights, the Democratic stance on this will show Millennials that the party is too conservative for them.

Civil liberties in times of war? Despite Millennials being very liberal on this issue, the Republicans and Democrats alike voted for the Patriot Act.

Even on issues with wide support for the liberal position, the Democrats swing conservative. By the time you get down, to say, abolishing indecent exposure laws, the Democrats don't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing liberal legislation. The image of Democrats being pot-smoking hippies is nothing but a hobgoblin of the right (and if they're really hippies, why do they wear those grey suits to Congress?), who somehow believe that even if this day and age people who take the liberal stances on their favorite culture-war issues will somehow be able to vanquish them with the ballot.

Samarah makes some good points, but let's be honest. No party is very far from the then-current mainstream ... not ones that want to hold power, at least. We're exiting a conservative era, and, as you would expect, both parties are centered to the right of their natural center. The Dems are just the less conservative of the two major parties. If the Greens dispalce the Dems as the governing party of the left, they will suffer the same fate during the next 2T-3T.

In a few years, the pendulum will swing far enough to the left that the GOP will then be the less liberal party. Samarah will be there to see it along with the rest of the Millies. Even then, I doubt that running naked in the streets and legalization of all drugs will be accepted enought to get passed, but clothing-optional places and MJ should get the nod.

Both may even happen while I'm still taking nourishment.