"Is this it?" our readers are asking. Is September 11, 2001, the beginning of the Fourth Turning? Was this attack the catalyst?

Recall what we wrote, in The Fourth Turning (pp373-4), about the catalyst: "A spark will ignite a new mood?. An intial spark will trigger a chain reaction of unyielding responses and further emergencies?. At home and abroad, these events will reflect the tearing of the civic fabric at points of extreme vulnerability-problem areas where, during the Unraveling, America will hav eneglected, denied, or delayed needed action. Anger at 'mistakes we made' will translate into calls for action, regardless of the heightened public risk. It is unlikely the catalyst will worsen into a full-fledged catastrophe, since the nation will probably find a way to avert the initial danger and stabilize the situation for a while. The local rebellion will probably be quelled, terrorists foiled, fiscal crisis averted, disaster halted, or war fever cooled. Yet even if dire consequences are temporarily averted, America will have entered the Fourth Turning."

Was this terrorist attack a jarring "spark" in history, of the sort we described, substantial enough to catalyze a crisis mood. Of course. Will it? That still is open to question--but it could.

There are a lot of rhetorical comparisons being made. Many pundits and politicians are likening this to Pearl Harbor (Newt Gingrich called it a "second Pearl Harbor"), or are talking about a "sudden turn" in history, a "total war," a "great crisis," and so on.

Changes in how we think about events can determine the direction and outcome of the events themselves. Right now, people are beginning to talk the rhetoric of a Fourth Turning. Does that mean we're entering one? The link between the recent 911 attack and our overall location in history certainly seems suggestive.

Recall how, in every prior Fourth Turning, the combatant-enemies have used images of the injustice, decadence, or civic weakness of an opponent's recent Third Turning as motivators. Japanese leaders used images of 1920s-era America to convince themselves and their followers that Japan could defeat a much larger nation. Picture this playing out among Islamic fundamentalists, if they are indeed our enemy (or among our enemies) in the next Fourth Turning. Magnify an image of 1990s-era America--with all of its casual pleasures, sex scandals, globalism, legalism, individualism, careless follies, celebrity carnivals--and you've got a picture of everything these militants despise about America.

Recall, also, how in every Fourth Turning, people looked back, after the fact, and wondered why so many had been so blind and never saw it coming. Now, in light of recent events, we can glimpse why. People do see it coming-but never take it seriously. It's amazing how many threats we "sort of" know are out there, but we just never get around to focusing on. A lot of people "sort of" saw a war over slavery coming, but were utterly surprised when it erupted. Ditto with fascism--or, now, terrorism. We all "knew" it was coming. Or did we?

But let's get back to the central question. Is this the Fourth Turning trigger? As we all know, the answer will lie mainly in how we react to this--and to how our adversaries react to our reactions, and (let's confess) to any number of purely accidental circumstances.

As Marc Lamb points out, the last time we had a big bomb go off on Wall Street was near the end of the post-WWI "Red Scare." The scare was a reaction to an anarchist / Bolshevist bombing campaign, including mail bombs and coordinated multi-city blasts (on July 2, 1919) that succeeded in partially destroying the residence of Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer. It spawned the notorioius Palmer raids, which in turn may have led to the famous Wall Street bombing of 1920 that killed 20 people. But what did the Red Scare itself trigger? An isolationist reaction, a fervor to shut out the world, a demand to punish as many perpetrators as we could catch and to round up and send the rest "back where they came from." Above all, it triggered a desire to avoid the larger problem--social, economic, political--underlying the violence. We wanted "normalcy." In short, America moved more deeply into a Third Turning, not yet into a Fourth.

In the days, weeks, and months ahead, how can we tell whether this terrorist attack will become a Fourth Turning catalyst? Here are some hallmarks of a reaction that would indicate this:

1. <LI> A desire to describe the problem in maximalist rather than minimalist terms--in ways that would sweep other problems (fiscal, economic, cultural, moral) into this one big problem.
   <LI> A movement toward grand solutions that would permanently solve the problem rather than solutions that could be interpreted as delay or diversion.
   <LI> An impulse toward total reaction (total war, destruction of enemies) as opposed to calibrated action (legalistic enforcement of rules, "justice" for enemies).
   <LI> A distinct shift, in public life, away from individualism (civil liberties) and toward community purpose (survival).
   <LI> The end of the petty arguments of the Third Turning-the blue-zone / red-zone "culture wars," rooted in old Second Turning debates--that may begin to feel ridiculous, even dangerous.
   <LI> The increasing irrelevance of the celebrity culture. Will anyone care about Michael Jackson, or Michael Jordan, in the familiar Third Turning way? Recall how, once the last Fourth Turning started, the flagpole sitters came down, less because they themselves felt any great new purpose than because the public just stopped paying attention.
   <LI> A sharp negative turn in America's perception of immigration (and, in time, of potential immigrants' perceptions of America)--and of "globalism" more generally. Recall the old Wired magazine forecast that "open:good; closed:bad" was a permanent attitude. Will our society now move toward "closed:good; open:bad"? Will we see a move toward nativism in our culture and treatment of foreign-born Americans, and toward a sort of do-it-elsewhere-but-not-here isolationism in foreign policy? What will "Globalism"mean now? Will people begin fearing it, not merely as a possible threat to jobs, but for how it might make fanatics out of people halfway around the world? The nativist right could easily join the anachist (anti-IMF) left on this one.
   <LI> A movement by each generation toward a new archetypal role, in keeping with the phase of life it is about to enter. Are Boomers overcoming narcissism? Gen Xers circling the wagons around family? Are Millennials emerging as young heroes. (Keep an eye on media treatment of Millennials. Will the criticism give way? Will the pop culture change? Will youth fare be less gross, less violent?)
   <LI> A new willingness to pay a human price to achieve national purpose. Will military plans resemble Kosovo-or Iwo Jima? Will we try to rely on exquisite technologies to reduce the risk of military deaths, or will we rely on human courage to reduce the risk of technological failure?
   <LI> A shattering of consumer confidence. Is the economy still expected to veer up and avoid a recession, or will we soon see newly dark forecasts about a likely recession-or worse. What will happen to the Dow and Nasdaq? With every major global economy sinking even before Tuesday, will there be talk of a "perfect storm." As for the direct impact of the event itself, how should we assess the damage to the WTC towers, to the travel and entertainment industries, to America's global reputation for inviolability, and to the immediate household lurch toward consumer caution and liquidity? The longer the up-cycle-and it's been a long one-the graver the risk that the trip down could be vertiginous.

Depending on what happens in all these areas, the result of the terrorist attack may be either a Fourth Turning or a shift toward the nastier edge of a Third Turning mood--followed, in short while, by a shift into the first isolationist phase of a Fourth Turning, perhaps keyed more by domestic than global arguments.

It is worth pointing out that, typically, Fourth Turnings begin with an isolationist, nativist, anti-market-and-anti-global-power phase, filled with huge emphasis on the rebirth of national community--before entering a more optimistic, secular, and global phase. The Revolutionary War and Great Depression-WWII Fourth Turnings were both like that. (The Civil War never did have a "global" phase.) Don't assume that, if we do in fact enter a Fourth Turning, that the U.S. is suddenly going to go all over the world with a sword of terrible swift justice. History suggests a road that loops around a bit more.

Right now, it's too early to tell. One can see evidence both pro- and con- for each of the indicators (1) through (10) described above. Consider President George W. Bush. In some ways, yes, he fits the aging prophet archetype-fixated on values ("good versus evil," he says) and broadly defining the target ("sponsors" as well as perpetrators). But in other ways, both in his uncertain demeanor on the day of the event and his easy deference to a Silent-dominated board of advisors (who, as they did in the China spy plane incident, are already defining the U.S. reaction in terms of procedure, timetables, evidence, custody, multilateral alliances, and so on), he has a ways to go before he fills his archetype.

Or consider the public as a whole. Are the Silent, as yet, sufficiently diminished in institutional influence? And are most Boomers any more ready than the President to leave the shadow of their Silent mentors and assume the Gray Champion mantle? Boomer columnist Charles Krauthammer stated the terms of this generational difference very succinctly: "Secretary of State Colin Powell's first reaction to the day of infamy was to pledge to 'bring those responsible to justice.' This is exactly wrong. Franklin Roosevelt did not respond to Pearl Harbor by pledging to bring the commander of Japanese naval aviation to justice. He pledged to bring Japan to its knees. You bring criminals to justice; you rain destruction on combatants. This is a fundamental distinction that can no longer be avoided."

And what about younger generations? Are Gen Xers truly ready to assume a new midlife role as social anchors, family protectors, and buck-stopping managers. And can Millennials--the oldest of whom are just now celebrating their 19th birthday--yet be expected to participate in a collective rite of passage and become fully aware of their new generational role? (Recall: At the time of the Boston Tea Party, the oldest Republicans were age 31; at the time of the Great Crash, the oldest G.I.s were age 28).

This leads, finally, to the issue of timing. It is still early for a Fourth Turning. In terms of the age of the next civic generation, we are only at 1920 (the House of Morgan bombing, again!) on the G.I. Generation calendar or at 1761 (when colonists were still celebrating Britain's triumph over French Canada) on the Republican Generation calendar. We're only two years beyond the Progressive calendar with the Civil War. Yet, as we wrote, the Civil War crisis began ahead of schedule, leaving the Transcendentals--a very Boomerlike generation--unchecked by younger generations.

This is only one example, of course, but its record suggests a very real danger if this 911 terrorist incident does indeed trigger a new turning. That danger could be averted, to some degree, if the aging Silent and rising Gen Xers each assert themselves more than the Compromisers and Gilded did in that other saeculum. This may be possible, given that the Boomers are a smaller-cohort generation than Transcendentals (18 years, vs. 30 years).

To answer the core question--"Is this the start of a Fourth Turning?"--and to answer the perhaps more important question--will the next Fourth Turning end in triumph or tragedy?--we will simply have see how events unfold, and how each of today's generations play their scripts. It won't be long before we find out.

What do we know already? First, even if this is not the catalyst, we know that America's social mood is nearly ready for one and that the entire 911 episode offers (as did the Stamp Act or John Brown's raid) a pretty good feel for what's just ahead. And second, even if this is the catalyst, we know that we should not confuse it with the climax. It would simply be the tea dumped into the harbor, the surprise election of an Illinois lawyer, the dizzying plunge of the Dow--a gateway, a prelude, not the main event. The climax of the Fourth Turning, the true history-bending moment, remains well in the future, its nature unknowable.

How sure are you that you have the generational divisions correct? Are you sure the first Millenials are only 19? What if they're 27 or 28? People 31 years old and younger hardly know defeat. We built the internet. We won the Gulf War. We're the bright young entrepreneurs and CTOs. We're hardly alienated. This does leave room for a mini-GenX of 10 or 13 years. And if our leaders totally botch the response to this incident, that could qualify as a WWI-type experience, I suppose. But it could also be that we're going to have a fourth turning start now because we're ready for it.

Thanks for the essay, Neil and Bill. I have just been rereading the first few pages of chapter 13 of _Generations_, which discusses, among other things, the likely reaction to a nuclear bomb having been smuggled into New York City -- the 2T, 3T, and 4T reactions. Well, of course the WTC tragedy is worse: it's not just a threat, but it happened.

Reading the next few pages, the theory is that the big riveting event would take place close to the year 2020, snapping the generations into place forever. That seems so far away from 2001. My mind is wrestling with the idea that another decade and more will pass before the history-bending events arrive, vs. the view of the 4T that has been at least glimpsed these past couple of days. It certainly does look, smell, and feel like the 4T, however there is no clear perception of everything coming to a head, domestic as well as global -- it's too soon for that. Yet I do also think "there's no going back", to the 1990's that is, and I don't think we have a 1920's-era 3T ahead.


So then, it seems to me that we don't have until 2020 to address all that can no longer avoid being addressed. It is my view that the election of Clinton in 1992 -- and I say this as apolitically as possible -- was harmful to the extent that Boomers arrived in power too soon. Now, two elections later, Boomers are comfortable with the idea of wielding power, no matter how much Bush might look to Silents for guidance. Boomers are already in leadership mode -- this contrasts with the ch. 13 description in _Generations_, which suggested that Boomers would at this point merely be getting frustrated with Silent leadership, and beginning to assert themselves preparatory to their 4T role down the line.

At a local level, I am disheartened by the continued interest in things 3T by many of my peers, yet also encouraged by others for whom the 4T seems to have arrived (unbeknownst to them by that term, of course). It's a curious 3T/4T blend here in the Sacramento area. It could relapse into late 3T for a while, with this being but the early taste of what things will be like. I for one can never feel the same about the 3T, and I think others who don't feel as I do will now will come to feel the same in the next few years.

Ultimately, we don't know what the reactions and counterreactions will be, nor which unforeseen history-shaping events will transpire. Nor do we have a handy timetable. Yet I do think it's hard to deny that the S&H model is working, and that winter must come -- moving to a 1T or 2T era is seen as utter nonsense by anyone, and if any more 3T remains, it must be of the darkened, pre-4T variety.

From this vantage point, I am treating this as a 4T catalyst, at a time when Boomers are wielding power too soon, and Millennials could use a few more years to become young adults before a 4T.

RichT, Strauss and Howe make a very good point in that, although Boomers may indeed be in charge of things too soon, we still have many Silents in power to divert their zeal, thanks to a longer life-span than in previous saeculae. (sp?) Without the diverting effect of the fair-minded, policy-conscious Silent Generation, the 4T might indeed become disastrous. Xers, too, seem to have moved into midlife roles rather comfortably, and may also be old enough to help keep the Boomers in line.

As to your concerns about continuing 3T behavior, don't be surprised. Stauss & Howe compare turnings to seasons. You don't just suddenly go from summer to fall, or from fall to winter overnight. Even in April, sometimes you still get cool days, and even early winter may still contain a few sunny, warmish days. Turnings behave in the same manner. I remember for quite some time after the Awakening officially ended, some people still continued to insist on behaving as if the Awakening was still going on; the difference was, it irritated others more than it had previously. Same thing now. If indeed this is the catalyst (and I do believe it is, having seen all 10 of the things S&H have mentioned in their post), this does not mean that suddenly all gross-out movies, bad music, and freakish celebrities will disappear overnight. It doesn't mean that you won't still hear petty "red zone vs blue zone" ideological arguments either. These things will just become fewer and farther in between, and will gain progressively less attention and acceptance from others.

Like others, I was facinated when I read The Fourth Turning shortly after its release in 1997. I told many about the patterns of history described in its pages and thought often about the potential 4T ahead, especially as I experienced the noise and nonsense of the present 3T.

While watching the non-stop and numbing coverage of the horrific events of 911, I too pulled the book off of my shelf to see how the day's carnage might be the end of one season and the start of another. I thought about things and talked about them with my wife (until she told me to "let it go" -- she hasn't read the book) and was excited to read the author's thoughts and to be able to participate in this conversation.

The idea of reality being shaped by perception resonnates with me. Clearly most everyone sees this tragic and historic event being the end of one way of being and the start of another. But, it is way too early to tell what is starting. I too think that the dynamics of the generations are not yet reved to their most powerful and dangerous levels, but the pistons clearly are starting to fire in the aftermath. I find the analogy of "cool days in summer" to be an apt one as perhaps this is the chill of the winter being foreshadowed even if the most brisk winds are not ready to blow.

I end with a paraphrased quote I heard Tom Brokaw speak as he ended his segment on NBC at about 10:30 EDT on Wed. Brokaw, a Silent/Boomer so deeply enamored of the G.I.'s, spoke of how a time of cynicism, mistrust, dissention, and disunity toward government and civic structures needs to come to an end now. This figure, speaking with confident wisdom to millions of Americans, said we must unify behind the authority and strenth of our government and support it as we go forward beyond this turning point. Is he stating a national mood or shaping it? Will we warm up in the late days of autumn after being blasted by the cold front of 911. Time, as always, will tell...

I fear that the facts showing that 911 came earlier in the generation cycle than the fourth turnings that turned out well may indicate that this one, like the Civil War cycle, will turn out badly. We have usually been fortunate that our cast of generation characters were in their best roles when the need was greatest. This one may hit us when we are ill-equipped.

I take no comfort in the continuing strength of the Silent Generation. I think that their only role will be that of a fretful wife who grabs her husband's coat as he is leaping a ten foot crevase. Her intent is to restrain his folly, but all she does is fatally slow down his momentum.

This is just a fear, I'm generally optimistic.

Just a few thoughts on 911 day and some of the posts above. In previous 3Ts there were several Prophet presidents, they were just laughably inept/incompetent/immoral much the way we have seen Clinton and Bush and Gore for that matter. Before the Civil War, Polk, Franklin Pierce and Millard Fillmore (those two guys no one remembers) were in Lincoln's generation. Before the Depression, both Harding and Coolidge were both in FDR's generation, so Clinton and Bush did not come too soon.

Re: no 1920s end in sight. I recently read and interesting book called _The_Roaring_2000s_ by Dent. He is familiar with S&H but sort of bungles the generational thing. His point is that the size and spending of Boomers are pushing the economy. More and more money chasing limited places to put it, hence bugetary surpluses and a booming market. Anyway he sees the boom continuing to about 2010, however, using his figures, the number of people in peak spending years peaks in 2007 so after that it is downhill economically.

So is this it or just a foreshadowing of things to come?

I, like the others, after reading the book was transfixed by it. To me, everything fell perfectly in place regarding the final unraveling of the 90s. Of course, there must be rigor applied to the identification of the 4th Turning within the 911 events.

But to me, on a gut level- the signal is clear. The Turning is here, and its potential consequences are terrifying.

I have been thinking back about posts in the Civil War thread. One idea I recall was that the the Civil War might have begun even earlier, but the influence of the Compromisers resulted in a Compromise of 1850 that postponed the war awhile. If we are lucky, Silent influence will result in another punitive raid like the bombing of Libya. We may be foretunate that the Dubya administration includes Silent cabinet members such as Powell.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2001-09-13 22:50 ]</font>

I've noticed a two-apart generational difference. In this event, Boomers are pledging to bring forth fires from heaven to give those terrorists a slow, painful, burning death. However, it seems like the Millies' greatest priority is not righteous revenge. Instead it seems like Millies are turning to love for their nation and the citizens.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...3/210734.shtml

It seems like Boomers are starting to remove policies made in the Awakening by the GIs and Silent. This is just unreal. The leaders will stop at nothing to torch the terrorists...and Afghanistan. This just seems so unprecedented (even though it isn't of course)!!

On 2001-09-13 22:33, madscientist wrote:
I've noticed a two-apart generational difference. In this event, Boomers are pledging to bring forth fires from heaven to give those terrorists a slow, painful, burning death. However, it seems like the Millies' greatest priority is not righteous revenge. Instead it seems like Millies are turning to love for their nation and the citizens.

I am for the first opinion give those terrorists a long painful burning death.

Thanks for taking a couple of days before putting down your thoughts, Bill and Neil.

Like many others who have been writing the past few days, my thoughts on Tuesday immediately went to "The Fourth Turning." I've been lurking and reading the past few days, especially in the "Is the Fourth Turning Coming?" thread, enjoying familiar voices like the Lambs, Susan B, Neisha, Robert, and Brian.

Like others have written tonight, I pulled my copy of the book off the shelves last night, and re-read through the expectations for the end of a Third Turning and the start of a Fourth. Reading at this site, seeing new voices express their opinions, and realizing that a few thousand or so of us have special insights into the changes we're facing now and in the days ahead, is comforting and exhilarating at the same time.

What I appreciate is that you've let a lot of people write and express their thoughts in real-time as events unfold-- persons with insights from the generational perspectives you've introduced to us. Correspondents to this website have been able to speculate as the world evolves around us. And I appreciate that you have stepped back a bit to let some perspective develop (at least for the most part) before sallying forth with your own thoughts about this great tragedy, and its place in this great non-linear view of American history.

People around me have been numbed by all this. Repeatedly I hear the comments that no one is unaffected by this event. This has truly been one of those seminal moments in time. Kennedy in 1963, the Challenger in '86, the Terrorist Planes of 2001. Certainly other significant events have taken place in my 45 years (Brian Rush-- I've got one month on you-- a significant month that finds me a graduate of the class of 1974, and presumbably the class of '75 for you)-- Vietnam (I bought David Kaiser's "American Tragedy" this summer, and intend to get to it soon--do you know that the History Book Club is currently listing it as just one of 144 titles intended to entice former Club Members like me to return-- $29.95 David, but I could buy it again for $1 to rejoin the Club-- :smile: ), Watergate, the Hostage Crisis, the Gulf War, Waco, and Oklahoma City, but none of those recent events grips like 911 does.

This sure feels like that Catalyst, and I certainly feel that it's time to put the Third Turning to bed. In George Bush's words, "this is the First War of the 21st Century," and "this Nation will never be the same," which certainly sets a stage for seeing that we have taken a turn down a new road in time. Yes, it's early, and we may find that many developing events of 2000-2002 (E2K, California Energy Crisis, end of the Bull Market, plus 911) will ultimately be seen as that period of turning, but if this great tragedy fails to be THE catalyst, heaven help us all that something even more cataclysmic (sp?) may lie ahead!

Some of the posters seem to be concerned that if this does turn into the catalyst for 4T, it will turn out badly because the generations do not line up the way that Neil and Bill have predicted. I'm 31, almost certainly a GenXer, but I and several friends of mine who are familiar with all of Strauss & Howe's writings have in the past noted the Heroish tendencies of people even just a couple of years younger than myself. Events will be the proof, of course, but it seems to me quite possible that this event has galvanized our society so much because America is ready for it.

The most important real-time datum that leads me to say this is the sense that everybody, of all political and generational persuasions, has focused their attention on both the immediate responses necessary, and the long-term societal changes necessary. Isn't it possible to say the the Civil War turning came out so badly because there was no consensus, and no thought of finding a consensus on the way society needed to change? Well, even average folks seem to have woken up to the fact that while we must destroy the people who have done this to us, the hatred that they represent will not go away because we kill a few people. The recognization is dawning that we have to do something constructive about that. And that we will have to change our own society in order to do so. Doesn't this point to the beginning of a consensus?

Compare it to the beginning of another 4T--in 1929, there was certainly not consensus on the direction society should take. There was only the beginning of consensus. Heck, the Depression was an internal struggle, including a serious, well-funded plot to depose Roosevelt and replace him with a fascist, militaristic leader.

Just because it doesn't fit the timetable, doesn't mean we can't have a successful 4T starting now.

Just how "premature" would it be if this were indeed the Crisis catalyst? (And if it is not, its closest parallel in a prior saeculum would be John Brown's raid - not the post-World War I "Red Scare"). What is more important - the age of the oldest Prophets or the age of the YOUNGEST ones? (the youngest Transcendentals turned 39 in 1860; the youngest Missionaries, 47 in 1929). And just how sure are we that the Boom encompasses 1943-60? If the 1860 cohorts - born five years before a Crisis resolution - can be Prophets, then why can't the 1940 cohorts - also born five years before a Crisis resolution - be Prophets as well? And do those born in 1958, '59 or '60 really have genuine memories of the American High that they can draw upon? (And can you envision Madonna aging into a 21st-Century Elsa Maxwell? I can - very easily). Even if one accepts "Morning in America" as the start of the Unraveling, the 1958 cohorts were within two months of the same age then as the first Lost cohorts were at the time of the 1908 presidential election - the event cited as the start of the previous Unraveling. Even the Xer/Millennial line is open to debate: A few months ago, a 22-year-old Berkeley graduate wrote an essay, published in the San Francisco Chronicle, dubbing her peers the front end of the "We Generation."

In short, a lot of questions remain unanswered - not only about what turning we're in at the moment, but who actually belongs to what generation.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2001-09-14 01:28 ]</font>

I think I'll put in my last word here over the "4T-or-not" debate. While there's a lot to talk about for those who believe we've entered the 4T, for those of us who don't, we can only voice our skepticism and move on.

While the general sense seems to be largely in favor of our having entered the 4T, I remain unconvinced; while, as S&H have pointed out, we won't know for sure until later whether or not we've entered Crisis territory, I don't think the arrival of the 4T with 9-11 is inevitable without further twists.

While I won't go down S&H's list of 4T indicators point by point, I will sum up my impressions. I think what we're seeing in America right now is facsimile of what America will be like when it enters the 4T - but that this is not the 4T itself. I repeat that I don't think that 9-11, terrible as it is, is providing America with the momentum for 4T liftoff. At the moment we're seeing many indicators on the S&H list - protective Xer parents, fulminating Boomer leaders, pop culture being shunted aside - but I believe this will all prove temporary. I think, without certain turns of events, it will have worn off in a couple of months.

First off, look at Washington - while the Pres and Congressmen take turns playing the wrathful Gray Champions, behind the scenes they are still playing the 3T leaders. Bush may talk big for the audience, but when the cameras are off, he consults experts, he carefully marshals support in Congress, and he sends Powell abroad to insure multilateral support for American initiatives. Congress may boil over with Pearl Harbor analogies and pronounce themselves completely unified behind Bush, but when alone in their offices, they recoil from Bush's attempts to collect broad powers to himself. I think it can be definitively said that if we have entered the 4T, these guys don't know it.

The news media also doesn't seem to know that we're in a 4T. They pretend to enter Crisis mode by switching to uninterrupted 24 hr. news broadcasts and screaming headlines, but pay attention to the tenor of all of it - the press is clearly in the Silent mindset. We do not see the spittle-flecked rage one would get from a 4T media. Have you noticed that every fourth story on the news is a scolding of the people taking out their anger on innocent Arab-Americans, or an attempt to dissuade us from taking precipitate action againt Mideast nations, or another pious plea to look at this from the Muslim side? While you may or may not find this admirable, it is impossible to deny that the press is bringing us the story in Silent gray, instead of Boomer black-and-white. If the press fails to dissuade the government from taking decisive action, it won't be for lack of trying.

Changes in the public mood will take longer to guage; but I think a combination of the lack of ambiguity surround 9-11 (we know it was foreigners that did it, and we all agree it was evil, leaving less room for the inward turning which characterizes the opening of a 4T), lead-footed leaders, and an ameliorating press will throw a wet blanket on the enthusiasm of the people. American generations are presently acting out their next-phase roles, but I believe this will recede quickly unless given further impetus - which our leaders and press are apparently determined not to provide.

I believe that events will generally turn out like this: however and whenever America acts, neither Congress nor Bush will display the spare-no-sacrifice, fire-and-brimstone spirit of 4T leaders; whatever is done, the press will keep a sharp eye out to make sure that the rules are followed, and cry bloody murder if any innocent people are caught in the cross-fire; and the American people will shielded as much as possible from any hardship which might result. Whatever the government does, it will be felt to not be enough, and be looked back upon with a certain amount of disappointment. By the '02 mid-term elections, Congressional Democrats will be assailing Bush for his mistakes, real or perceived, and Republican will be blaming Clinton and the Democrats for getting us in the mess in the first place. Republicans will use 9-11 as a missile shield justification; Democrats will use 9-11 as a refutation of the same. The American people and American life will return to 3T-normal, though in a slightly more embittered and jittery state. The Xers will be further convinced that the world they live in is arbitrary and hostile, the Boomers more convinced that their enemies are leading this country to ruin.

I believe the significance in 9-11 lies in giving us a glimpse into what the 4T will look like when it comes. More importantly, though, I believe that 9-11 will truly mark the Millennials off from the Xers before them. Up until now, I believe that to the extent Millennials were differentiated from Xers, it was by Boomers determined to make THIS generation better, to raise it right; but up until now, the Millennials have largely acted like the Gen Y that many have labeled them. I believe now, however, that Millennials will truly begin developing a distinct generational persona; this will arise from their having seen first-hand the dysfunctionality of their world, and having tasted what a unified America could feel like. I think Millennials will truly begin to take life more seriously, and begin acting, in very clear ways, like a young Civic generation (which I don't feel they've especially done so far, except in the imaginations of those who project their hopes and dreams upon them).

That's pretty much all I have to say on the subject; only time will tell whether I'm right or wrong.

911 will end up another 24-hr. newschannel freak show like the Gulf War, OJ, Clinton, the 2000 election and Condit. This is not the catalyst. I base this on two things that happened today, 9-13.

First, even though the Palastinian Authority aids and abets terrorists, Powell urged Sharon to meet with Arafat. Does this sound like all-out war?

Second, Bush said today we will "hunt down" the terrorists, as if they were public enemies on the most wanted list. We don't have to hunt down Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya. They're on the map. Does this sound like all-out war?

A mere two days after the invasion and already Powell and Bush's will to wage war is cracking. A week from now it will have crumbled like the WTC. We might get Bin Laden, but Bush's "war" will be symbolism over substance.

Two weeks from now everyone will be focused on Barry Bonds and Allen Iverson -- both of whom, like Ruth and Cobb, are great atheletes but questionable role models.

911 is called a "tragedy"; but tragedies are entertainment. When the real catalyst comes, it will be called an atrocity.

Jim Houseman writes? Changes in the public mood will take longer to guage; but I think a combination of the lack of ambiguity surround 9-11 (we know it was foreigners that did it, and we all agree it was evil, leaving less room for the inward turning which characterizes the opening of a 4T), lead-footed leaders, and an ameliorating press will throw a wet blanket on the enthusiasm of the people. American generations are presently acting out their next-phase roles, but I believe this will recede quickly unless given further impetus - which our leaders and press are apparently determined not to provide.

My crystal ball is coming up, ?Answer hazy, try again later.? The 1929 stock market crash changed the mood of the country, but no consensus on broad action was ready at the time. There is a difference between being wakened to an urgency that something has got to be done, and having a firm handle on what has to be done. By Pearl Harbor, the Essex class carriers and Iowa class battleships already well under construction. We had already made up our minds to go big government world power. Time wise, we are much closer to the crash than to Pearl. I believe we will start looking at problems and debating them, but we will not have answers for quite some time. Without answers we can?t march to transform society. Much of the energy expended early will be wasted. By the time we have answers, the Silent will be aged out of power, the Boomers will have their parking breaks removed, the Millenials will be aged into maturity.

I will quibble with one oft repeated complaint of Dubya?s people, especially Powell. I suspect this will be an international crisis. I suspect a new definition of human rights and an international enforcement of human rights is a likely outcome. I count the Balkans, Somalia, Middle East, East Timor, the embassy bombing and the USS Cole as earlier minor catalyst events, not enough to trigger the mood change, but part of the issues that must eventually be systematically addressed. Thus, I don?t see the pause to build an international coalition as weakness, but a portent of the main thrust of the crisis. The world uniting to solve common problems is a good thing. An idea that we can remake the world all by ourselves would have been a bad thing.

Some crises feature an ?On to Richmond? early phases where people believe a quick easy military solution will allow us to return to the old status quo. As Lincoln put it in his second inaugural, ?All knew that this (slave) interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding.? I am seeing a shadow of this. While some see the need to flex muscles, no one off this web site is yet foreseeing fundamental and astounding changes.

My wild guess is that Dubya is heir to Hoover, not FDR. He will attempt a brute force military effort to maintain the status quo. He might find that superpowers swatting terrorists is much like hunting house flies with a rifle. The 2004 elections might be interesting. Will anyone run on the platform, ?If you want peace, work for justice??

The other little gritch that has me scratching my head is the common idea that 911 will bring on recession or depression as consumer confidence fails. The fix for the last depression was a vast increase in military spending. Thus far, I have heard little about increasing taxes to rebuild the military. All I?ve heard is that we might have to shelve the missile defense system in order to keep fighters on runway alert near all our major cities. OK, we?re only a few days in, but we clearly are no where near ?fundamental and astounding.? So far as I can tell, Dubya is going to try to fight his all out war on a peacetime economic footing.

In response to Jim Houseman: that is an excellent post, you are wise beyond your 22 years.

It may well be, as hard as it seems to swallow so soon in the aftermath of 9-11-01, that the 3T will march on, in the extra-jittery sense that S&H forecasted for 2000-2004. (BTW, for some reason I find it annoying to use "911" as shorthand for the attacks, as it tends to render things less consequential in my mind.) However, I can say for sure that my own mind set is now 4T, and very likely that of many other Americans. I agree that we have been afforded a glimpse of what the _real_ 4T will be like. But it is indeed possible that looking back, this will also be the catalyst. Reactions and chain reactions are everything. It doesn't appear, as someone just posted, that Bush and Powell are displaying the Boomer all-out mentality characteristic of a core 4T; but as others have pointed out, Bush is the equivalent of Millard Fillmore or Herbert Hoover. The early 4T is still the 4T, even if the major divisions, human cost, and momentous events are years away.

I think that while a majority of people might return to Barry Bonds et al, there is truly "no going back" for others. No matter which unresolved 3T issue is next up for the nation, I think we will see an infusion of 4T attitudes beginning to replace 3T attitudes. That will lead to the next foreseeable but unforeseen twist.

I also agree that this is a generation-marking event for Millennials, who as you say have up to now been groomed by Boomers, but not had a shocking event of this nature to galvanize them.

To word things differently: if this is still the 3T, then this has been a "trial run" 4T. It is practice for the real thing, when we are readier than we are now to have a 4T. This in itself points to the imminence of a 4T.

This is my first post here, so a little background. I'm a boomer ('54), a libertarian w/ redneck/conservative leanings, and read _Generations_ in 1992 and TFT just after it came out. The books changed my world view. I've had to buy several copies of each because I loan them and they don't come back. I doubt anything I can add will be as articulate/intelligent as most of the posts here, but so what. Some random thoughts/anecdotes from the last week:

* By Tuesday evening I realized that this may well be the beginning of Winter. It was such a shocking day that it took awhile...

* At Rotary on Thursday we took up a special collection, to be matched by the club. One of only two Muslims in the club wrote a $1,000 check on the spot. He gave a eloquent little speach on "those people" being the enemies of his faith. He hoped we (meaning Americans) would do Islam a favor and wipe them out. After the meeting I spoke to him and learned much. For instance, just last week, Bin-Laden's group destroyed and Ismali-Shiite mosque in Pakistan. We just don't get that kind of news over here. The upstart being that MANY Muslims would love to see us destroy the Taliban.

* I couldn't find my copy of TFT. Later that day I got an email from a friend I'd loaned it to. His one line message: "Winter has started." Turns out he still has my copy, but ordered five more Tuesday.

* I have three kids (2nd, 4th, 6th grades). I find myself much more open with them about this crisis than before. For the first time, I'm not inclined to shelter them from cruelty, hatred and death. It's as if it's now time for them to learn.

* My dad (late GI, fought in WWII) used to argue about the Japanese-American internments in WWII. From my 1970's Boomer perspective, it was clearly unjust and unAmerican. His angry response was that "You weren't there. You don't understand, in 1942 we didnt KNOW we were going to win, and we did whatever it took." By 10AM Tuesday, I thought of those conversations with him (Dad died in 1995), and for the first time understood. (NOTE: I'm not at all advocated mistreating Arabs or anyone else, it's just that now I UNDERSTAND what they were feeling in 1942.)

* Have any of you Boomers ever wondered how our parents were so willing to die in WWII? Perhaps focusing more on the horror of death than the desirability of the overall goal? I know that's always been my perspective. Tuesday was the first time that, on an emotional level, I've ever acknowledged to myself that yes, I'd be willing to die for people other than my own family.

* All this discussion of the coming 4T isn't all that distressing to me. The burgeoning focus it brings is almost invigorating. Not only that, but it gives the hope that I (and especially my kids) will be around for the next 1T. To me that's the beauty of the generational perspective. It allows me to back off and see the forest.

*Finally, below is a copy of a column by Leonard Pitts, a syndicated columnist from Miami. Tell me that it's not a treatise on the coming change in societal outlook.

By Leonard Pitts Jr.
Syndicated columnist

They pay me to tease shades of meaning from social and cultural issues, to provide words that help make sense of that which troubles the American soul. But in this moment of airless shock when hot tears sting disbelieving eyes, the only thing I can find to say, the only words that seem to fit, must be addressed to the unknown author of this suffering.

You monster. You beast. You unspeakable bastard.

What lesson did you hope to teach us by your coward's attack on our World Trade Center, our Pentagon, us? What was it you hoped we would learn? Whatever it was, please know that you failed.

Did you want us to respect your cause? You just damned your cause.

Did you want to make us fear? You just steeled our resolve.

Did you want to tear us apart? You just brought us together.

Let me tell you about my people. We are a vast and quarrelsome family, a family rent by racial, cultural, political and class division, but a family nonetheless. We're frivolous, yes, capable of expending tremendous emotional energy on pop cultural minutiae, a singer's revealing dress, a ball team's misfortune, a cartoon mouse.

We're wealthy, too, spoiled by the ready availability of trinkets and material goods, and maybe because of that, we walk through life with a certain sense of blithe entitlement. We are fundamentally decent, though peace-loving and compassionate. We struggle to know the right thing and to do it. And we are, the overwhelming majority of us, people of faith, believers in a just and loving God.

Some people you, perhaps think that any or all of this makes us weak. You're mistaken. We are not weak. Indeed, we are strong in ways that cannot be measured by arsenals.

Yes, we're in pain now. We are in mourning and we are in shock. We're still grappling with the unreality of the awful thing you did, still working to make ourselves understand that this isn't a special effect from some Hollywood blockbuster, isn't the plot development from a Tom Clancy novel.

Both in terms of the awful scope of its ambition and the probable final death toll, your attacks are likely to go down as the worst acts of terrorism in the history of the United States and, indeed, the history of the world. You've bloodied us as we have never been bloodied before.

But there's a gulf of difference between making us bloody and making us fall. This is the lesson Japan was taught to its bitter sorrow the last time anyone hit us this hard, the last time anyone brought us such abrupt and monumental pain. When roused, we are righteous in our outrage, terrible in our force. When provoked by this level of barbarism, we will bear any suffering, pay any cost, go to any length, in the pursuit of justice.

I tell you this without fear of contradiction. I know my people, as you, I think, do not. What I know reassures me. It also causes me to tremble with dread of the future.

In days to come, there will be recrimination and accusation, fingers pointing to determine whose failure allowed this to happen and what can be done to prevent it from happening again. There will be heightened security, misguided talk of revoking basic freedoms. We'll go forward from this moment sobered, chastened, sad. But determined, too. Unimaginably determined.

You see, there is steel beneath this velvet. That aspect of our character is seldom understood by people who don't know us well. On this day, the family's bickering is put on hold. As Americans we will weep, as Americans we will mourn, and as Americans, we will rise in defense of all that we cherish.

Still, I keep wondering what it was you hoped to teach us. It occurs to me that maybe you just wanted us to know the depths of your hatred. If that's the case, consider the message received. And take this message in exchange: You don't know my people. You don't know what we're about. You don't know what you just started.

But you're about to learn.

Very thoughtful posts, above. Jim, you're right to be a skeptic. We're seeing 4T elements, but are they veneer--or the solid article? Bob, you're right that we should think more about the crash than Pearl Harbor. Any comparison to that event, as a galvanizing force, must take account of the fact that the U.S. was already deep in a Fourth Turning, not entering one. As for the nature of the leadership, and whatever you think of Bush: Remember that the last 4T catalysts occurred under the leadership of (1) no one in particular, (2) Buchanan, and (3) Hoover.

Well, this 13er/Xer (1969) is pleased to report he's found a commentary from one Boomer who's somewhat overcome his "narcissism." Is there hope for others?



People ask, "Why do these terrorists hate us so badly, and why do they want to destroy the symbols of our democracy?" I don't know all of the answers, but I have some reflections that might shed a bit of light on them.

I've spent most of my life in the DC area, and during this time, my ideas and opinions and feelings about the Pentagon -- and its work -- have shifted quite dramatically over the years. Personally, and deeply, I still am in a stew of mixed emotions about this week's events, especially here in the DC area where the Capitol was evacuated last
evening, this morning there is a 4 block hole cut out of the center of the city to protect the White House, and there is a huge gash in one side of the Pentagon. I offer these ideas as a possible window into the wide range of others' feelings about that building and the work that it symbolizes.

My father, whom I loved dearly, worked at the Pentagon and in the adjoining office complex in Crystal City, dragging himself everyday to a job that made him throw up his breakfast every morning because he was so
sick from the tragedy -- a man deeply conflicted and trapped between the need to feed his seven children, an extremely narrow skill range that was of value only in the defense community, and his complete revulsion
with what the country that he loved was doing in Vietnam.

Like many of us, I was in high school and college in the late 60s and early 70s. And while Frank and Don (NOTE: these are military folks he is responding to) and others were doing their duty in a uniform overseas fighting for our freedom, I was doing a different duty, trying to persuade our government that it was wrong about the
war. Over the years, there were protests and tear gas and the National Guard . . . and, the one, powerful, unifying symbol of the government's stubborn pride and wrongheadedness was the Pentagon. Powerful.
Strong. Secure. The local symbol of all of the terror that was happening a world away in Vietnam. The site of protests. The site of rallies. The object of rage and resentment. The object of my own rage
and resentment.

Personally, things have shifted for me since. I'm 30 years older than I was then, and in my maturing, I've learned that it's wrong to hate the people wearing the uniforms. Despite all of our differences, at a human level, they are us and we are them.

I know several people who work in the Pentagon now -- good people, a lot like my father. And, in driving by and flying past the Pentagon over the years, the deep, strong anger and resentment that I felt during the protests has cooled to a frustrated acceptance. Until Tuesday, the
Pentagon was still an unpleasant symbol for me, but without the anger and rage. Until Tuesday, it was a symbol of our country's mixed up priorities . . . spending waaay more money on weapons and defense than I'd prefer, and waaay too little on economic development, and international aid, and education, and the human needs of our people and our world.

I don't want to get into a debate about where to spend our money, however. I want to share with you how my feelings have shifted over the years -- my feelings about this 5 sided building, with the gaping wound
in its side. Feelings that now range among . . . sadness because 2 people on that plane were related to a close friend of mine who used to work in that very wing of the building . . . to relief that everyone I
know in the Pentagon is safe (at least physically) . . . to numb shock at the enormity of the tragedy . . . to anger that these mad people would violate our country so terribly . . . to grief for those who
died, and for the loss of our innocent belief that good will prevail . . . to confusion about all of the feelings that have centered around this building for me.

I can't understand or make sense of what these fanatics have done; nothing they say or believe can justify what they've done. They need to be found out, and held accountable for their actions. The US should
bring all of the resources at its disposal to find these people and prevent them from doing anything like this here or anywhere else in the world.

But I do understand the power of anger, directed at a symbol like the Pentagon. In a far less violent and destructive way, I've done it myself, propelled my ideology and conviction.

My prayer for all of us is that we all can live in the realization that, no matter how different they look, and no matter how foreign they seem, the terrorists are still people, and that, just like the civil servants and soldiers who've work in the Pentagon over the years, at some deep,
maybe even unknown level, they are us, and we are them.



PS (from doxieman) -- I've always thought of John McCain as the Gray Champion -- but of course, he's Silent, so that doesn't fit with S&H ...

Jim, I really liked your comment about this being a unifying event for Millennials. Yesterday I went on the AOL teen message boards to see what they were saying about the attacks. There were a number of angry, racist posts (which is par for the course on anonymous message boards), but also a lot of teens asking how they could help, and responses explaining what could be done (collect donations, write letters to NY, DC students, etc.). A lot of talk about how it made them realize how much they loved their country and wanted to help. One guy posted that he didn't see how this attack really mattered, particularly to people his age (he didn't say exactly how old he was), and then a ton of responses scolding him for this attitude.

I'm still inclined to think this is the trigger, but I see how it could go either way at this point.

Thanks to all the new posters, who are raising very good points.

My dear friend Bill seems torn between recognizing that this certainly FEELS like 12/21 (onset of winter) and his correct observation that it is coming a bit too soon. I am with him that what we are dealing with here is 1929, and it took four years even to begin to find the proper response. Meanwhile, Progressives on the Supreme Court continued to exert a critical and disastrous influence until the late 1930s. Which leads me to where I'm going.

Off the record, I am not at all confident that we will handle this well in the short and medium term. This time, the Administration's thinkers (like Paul Wolfowitz, who has a political theory background) think, are trying once again to replay World War II. They think that our mistake was to leave Saddam in power in 1991 and now they are going to fix it. They seem to be assuming that they can easily install pro-western governments in Iraq and Afghanistan. I share the skepticism about this that has been expressed.

From what we are hearing we will be in serious military operations within six months. They are, I think, as likely to lead to a new Vietnam as a new Gulf War, and very unlikely to lead to a new Second World War. Our troops will face lots of terrorism and we will probably face more at home. This is going to intensify the crisis at home.

Arafat, incidentally, is reacting out of terror. He knows an Amerian attack on Afghanistan will give the Israelis the perfect excuse to roll back everything he has gained. He is desperate. If he has any sense he will offer generous peace terms to the Israelis right now. But I don't think he can do that.

Thus, I do think this is the beginning of the crisis, but, AS IN THE LAST ONE, I do not expect any quick resolution. I do expect civic virtue to begin re-emerging. Suddenly who has sex with whom in DC doesn't seem so important. The Bush tax cut, I would bet, will be drastically curtailed--it HAS to be. Faith-based initiatives wil no longer be so important.

If trying to "end regimes" doesn't work, we'll have to reassess, and we'll need new, probably Boomer, leadership. Remember, Hoover tried to cure the depression too; it was supposed to be right up his ally; economic miracles were his specialty. And FDR was regarded as a frivolous second-rater.

It's true that in other turnings our first few Prophet presidents were nothing to write home about (although Polk, actually, was a very important one.) Daschle is my new candidate for Gray Champion. But that's VERY speculative.

I'd like to respond to all the Xers who are looking for heroism in their late 20s. Having sons born in '78 and December '81 (class of 2000) myself, I think Bill and Neil got that boundary right. However, I have always thought they got the Lost/GI boundary wrong, because it should have been 1904 or 1905 (which actually fits better with their sense of when the Awakening was over.) But in any case, as I discovered researching this myself, it's a very SOFT boundary. The 1901-4 cohorts include archetypal Losts like Lindbergh and John Steinbeck, and archetypal GIs like Lou Gehrig. Thus, it isn't surprising to find some Hero types now in their young twenties.

What this means, probably, is that the last Millennials have been born. (Look for a change in the attitude towards infants--if I'm right, within a couple of years, cute and cuddly will be IN.) The older ones will, alas, have plenty of time to get into the action. Meanwhile, I agree with Bill that the economy is about to tank. (I don't play the market very actively, but if I did, I'd buy tobacco and alcohol stocks and sell airlines. Joke.) That will create a new set of issues for the Millennials, who, like their grandparents, won't be able to find work.

One more thing. Waninski has never been one of my favorites. He's making a real point but putting a wrong slant on it. Millions of people around the world hate and fear what we have to offer. That doesn't mean it's our fault. It may mean we have to adjust our aims. I don't think we're going to turn the Middle East into Western Europe or the Asian rimland in this turning. They aren't ready. Remember, this is THEIR OWN crisis (Saudi Arabia and Iraq became independent in the 1920s.) They will come out of it somewhere, and, like the Soviets in the 1917-34 crisis, it may not be where we like, at all.

Remember one possibility: we could totally botch the crisis up. That's what Germany and Japan did 80 years ago. So far we have had the leadership that we needed. There's no house rule that says we always will.

Thanks for the reference to American Tragedy. The good news is, apparently the book club sold almost all their copies, because they never list it in the Sunday introductory ad. And anyone who has it, please look at the last paragraph. I owe it to Bill and Neil, but it looks pretty good now, I must say. . .

David