Dan: Oops, I must have pulled a 'Norm Crosby'. Substitute 'converge' or 'combine'.

Brian: did you read my post? Your post sounds like you did (some of same themes). Who do you think won the Culture Wars?

richt: You seem to me by your posts to lean conservative. So, if true, I am a bit confused by your response to my Culture Wars Winner post. Are you not happy with the way social and moral norms have migrated in the past 15 years to a more conservative nature? Or, if not, is it because you expected more of a migration in that direction?

I can only say that I think that the answer to Who Won the Culture Wars is an important one to know going into a 4T. Somehow I think it affects the kind of GC (or as Brian proposes, GC's) we will get. I thought the way it worked was that the Awakening ideals that survived as 'goals' are the ones we will see again in the Crisis. I had also asked if a Crisis has usually had a left-turning or more populist paradigm shift. Anyone?

My thought that conservatives have won these Culture Wars stems from many observations, but my first one was that it occurred to me that for about the last decade, it has often felt like the 50's all over again in many ways. That got me thinking as to why. Then, I re-read this:

http://www.millennialsrising.com/predictions.shtml

Amazing! Then, I started thinking about all the hopes and ideals of the 60's and the free personal "me" behavior of the 70's has been edited, eroded, or reversed.

That shift back towards cultural conservatism, while never perfect, is what has caused the 'cultural fragmentation' IMO. The upending of the 2T by the 3T shift in mood. Does that mean Neither side won? Both sides standing defiant, clinging to what gains each has made and trying to protect them. Again, looking at it that way, I say the conservatives have won... more.

Boomers are skizophrenic culturally, and the two sides have been competing as to who wins since the start of the 3T. I started noticing around the time drug-testing at the workplace became law. People just couldn't believe it. Workers considered refusing to be tested, many even just on principle. But it eventually prevailed and is now commonplace. Federally funded abortion reversal (and the illegal threat of clinic violence), welfare reform, repudiation of feminism, the rise of family values, strong and sheltering parenting -- these have all been known as conservative cultural issues, even though they overlap into the political.

Some of the biggest issues of 2T liberal thought are all but gone or have been forced to conform greatly, to wit: political correctness, feminism, sexual freedom, welfare and other personal gov't assistance, affirmative action, personal freedoms and non-judgment of such.

Every saeculum makes liberal progress, but it seems this one has backlashed. Does that mean a politically conservative 4T, or a renunciation with a paradigm shift? If it's to be the former, it then seems to me that this shift has already occurred.

More opinions welcomed.....

Good stuff, Susan, Anthony, and sv81.

Anthony, I think the Boomers SHOULD have the stomach if they are going to proceed in that way. I don't think the Silents involved have the stomach for it.

The shift to a more secure society is a conservative one, de-stressing personal freedoms.

More will be taking care of business with their own gunpower? Oh, now, that's attractive. Even though I tote one, I've heretofore tried not to envision everyone doing the same....

Oh, Hillary is spelled with 2 l's, richt. You had it right the first time.

Susan, saw your post on Mrs. Clinton and GC. The thought occurred to me that she could be the first one-name prez, in addition to the first woman, and first first-lady, and...... Actually, I think she isn't just a 3T has-been. To the contrary, she holds and could well represent many 2T Awakening ideals, of one Boomer side. Her Village idea is something I would think the Millies might condone, too.


Now to a negative and very bad item. Last and hopefully least, my husband just received an email from some anonymous nutcase which said simply: "One Good Thing About the Attack on America -- 5,000 less Left Coast Liberals can vote now."

He has a pretty good idea which conservative discussion board this came from, and he won't be going back there. He usually has fun joking around, but this draws the line.

Talk about someone who needs to be found, punished and then some. This kind of partisan crap needs to stop. I sure hope this doesn't indicate a really nasty, sick and sad 4T to come.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Barbara on 2001-09-15 02:52 ]</font>

Many thanks to my fellow history teacher Barbara for her wonderful posts. By the way, since we have so many new people, let me re-introduce myself briefly. Bill Strauss and I were college classmates, although we never met then. I met him at our 25th reunion (1994) and picked up Generations a couple of years later. I couldn't sleep for the next couple of nights, and called him when I had finished. Without telling him, I managed to get the assignment to review The Fourth Turning for the Boston Globe. We have been close friends ever since despite some violent disagreements (especially during the Clinton scandals.)

Now, let me get to an issue several people have raised. I was shocked, and frankly enraged, by Bill suggesting that the Blue Zone was less ready for a fourth turning than the Red=--not what this New Englander is seeing AT ALL! And this morning, I saw what I regard as conclusive evidence that Bill, on this one, is wrong.

I have been asking my colleagues at work--the Naval War College (I'm a civilian)--who will be the first public figure to say that really, this was all our fault? Jesse Jackson? Various leftist academics? (I'm a New Deal/New Frontier Democrat, myself). But was I wrong. The first two public figures to make that argument were none other than Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who agreed that God has withdrawn his protection from us because of feminism, homosexuality, pornography, etc. Using the kind of language they like--language most appropriate to a Fourth Turning--allow me to invite them both not to pass go, not to collect $200, and go straight to hell.

The Fourth Turning will narrow the acceptable range of opinions within the country. That is sad, in a way, but inevitable. My thanks to Messrs. Falwell and Robertson for defining themselves OUT of it right away. They will, I am sure, have counterparts on the Left, but none, perhaps, as visible as they are.

Barbara, as a kind of center-leftist, I don't think the right has won the culture wars. I do think they are over, and I've said all along that the 4T would end them, as it did in 1928. They have opened up American culture. Cohabitation and homosexuality are never going to be crimes again. Women won't be restricted to the home in our lifetime. (I'm curious that although you proclaim yourself a conservative, you apparently both mothered and worked, a fairly unusual pattern for an early Silent like yourself.)

To Matthew E, I'm glad to see you back here, and we need your calm Canadian perspective. I agree that you have identified the major issues, and thanks for pointing out that Bush said, "this won't change America." I take that as a further indication that he is fundamentally 3T. Hoover had the same determination not to disturb eternal verities, like no federal intervention in the economy.

Meanwhile, the Taliban is getting ready to fight, and the Europeans are expressing concern over our "war" talk. It is not in the least going to be easy to decide what to do, much less to do it.

One last thing: we could have had a much worse 4T. Let's go back to last fall. Suppose the Supreme Court had ruled for recounts. Suppose that the recounts had given the Florida vote to Gore. (This is totally hypothetical--we now know that the recounts he asked for would NOT have given him the election, although a statewide one might have.) And suppose that, then, the Republican Congress had unilaterally given the election to Bush, as they were planning to! That would have been a true catastrophe. This way, at least, we are drawing somewhat together and winnowing out the extremes, even though we may not yet have found our direction or our leader.

A simple rule of thumb: anyone who uses this crisis to flay his old domestic enemies is stuck in the 3T.

Another thought: yes, the Millennials are very young. But there will be enough of them voting next time to swing the election, I suspect.

David K '47

Check this out for what these events have done to the country. Fascinating.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/15/national/15INDI.html

David K '47

Fundamentalist Hindu's say they hate Pakastani's because they kill cows. Fundamentalist Pakastani's say they hate Hindu's because they eat pigs. Fundamentalist Muslims hate Judeo-Christians because they are "Satanic." Fundamentalist Judeo-Christians hate Muslims because they are "Evil." Fundamentalist members of the Falun Gong cult hate the Chinese government because it is "Western." Scientologists want to free Tibet because they are "operating Thetans." Fundamentalist Presbyterians in Northern Ireland hate Catholics because they are "Papists." How does one define Fundamentalism? How is it that this concept might well be the cornerstone of the crisis? In what ways might the Scientific and Secular Western culture be under attack by those ignorant one's who use the technolgies of science but deplore it's epistomology? DMMcG

KaiserD2 wrote: "To Matthew E, I'm glad to see you back here, and we need your calm Canadian perspective. I agree that you have identified the major issues, and thanks for pointing out that Bush said, "this won't change America." I take that as a further indication that he is fundamentally 3T. Hoover had the same determination not to disturb eternal verities, like no federal intervention in the economy."

Glad to be back. Just want to give 100% and help the team.

I don't think that was me who pointed out that Bush said that, although I do wonder what he's talking about. I have heard so many people in the last few days say that the world has changed for good and will never be the same . . . I don't understand how the President, of all people, hasn't picked up on that.

If you want to check out someone else who's still stuck in 3T thinking, how about Prime Minister Chretien? Yes, he is unequivocally supporting the U.S., but he's also blowing off questions about terrorists using Canada as a stepping stone to the States, trying to spin the issue rather than step up to the plate. The guy's been in office far too long.

Mr. Steven Yates takes a look at 911 from a libertarian/T4T perspective at Lewrockwell.com in


September 11, 2001: The Day the Crisis Arrived

What a lot of posts to read through, and so well written and with so many excellent points.

Couple of random thoughts - didn't S&H say in one of their books that more recent generational boundaries are subject to change based on the impact of future events? If we make a couple of year shift backwards for Boomers, Xers, and Millies, then we are a little bit closer to a 4T timetable.

Someone also said they wished T4T and Generations were indexed, me too. It's hard to easily find some information quickly. Plus it doesn't help that I loaned my T4T copy, so I don't have it available to consult.

I agree with Brian Rush's post stating that this Crisis will be different in that it is not a strictly American crisis, but a global one right from the outset.

Looking at the other Crises, a pattern typically seen is one where America/the Colonies is the underdog, trying to get out from under a ruthless or tyrannical power and gain greater power or independence - Armada Crisis, Revolutionary War Crisis. During the WWII Crisis, America was on the "right side", again, fighting for the underdogs against ruthless megalomaniacs Hitler and Mussolini. During these Crises, Prophet leadership prevailed. Now, if we look at the Civil War Crisis, half of America had to look at its own hypocrisy squarely in the eye: slavery in a country where equality was the cornerstone of the country's philosophy. In a way, America was wrong, the Crisis "ill-timed." The other half of the country was "right" in that they were fighting to free slaves. The Civil War Crisis was definitely congealed by Prophets. So we have our Crises where we were more "right" and one where we were more "wrong". Successful outcomes when Prophets lead "right" causes, mediocre outcomes when Prophets lead "wrong" or "ill-timed" causes.

OK. Bill Strauss warned that if this is the catalyst, then the Silent and Gen X are going to have to restrain the Boomers adequately due to the similarity of the generational lineup to the Civil War Crisis. Back to this in a second.

Now looking at our current situation, several themes present:

1) US has weakening civic infrastructure in many areas, as evidenced by the voting process in E2K.

2) US has antiquated intelligence.

3) US has antiquated security.

4) The cessation of the Cold War indicates that the World isn't willing to have a nuclear war.

5) The US is on the "wrong" side of the world power and control/dominance issue.

6) The US is on the "right" side of the terrorism issue.

Now, let's look briefly at our generational lineup's strengths and weaknesses:

Silent strengths: expertise, diplomacy, seeing "the gray", indirectly exerting power and influence, smiling as they "slip you the knife".

Boomer strengths: direct leadership, values identification, self confidence, no fear of verbal duel, clear, motivating vision.

GenX strengths: cunning, pragmatic, street-wise, competetive, individualistic, reality based.

Dealing with terrorism/911 calls for the strengths of the Silent and GenX, who have a lifetime of experience living in the shadow of dominant gens, who because of this will intuitively understand the MO of terrorist groups; i.e. groups who operate indirectly due to having less overt power. Who better to put together a strategy than the Silent? Who better to form the intelligence to infiltrate terrorist groups than GenX, particularly GenX criminals? Who better to manage the home front than Boomers, who will inspire, support, comfort, the home front? Think Rudy Guiliani! He acted in the attacks as a middle manager, not a visionary.

So the idea is this: When America is "more wrong" and the generational line up is as is, then the Crisis calls for the indirect skills of recessive gens. The reason this didn't work well during the Civil War is because, as S&H observe, the Adaptive gen didn't adequately assert itself with the Prophet gen. What's different now is that the Silent aren't about to just roll over, and Bush knows that he needs their expertise. And GenX is ready because it knows that in this situation, it is well prepared to effectively handle the situation.

As this 4T wears on, Prophets will move into more leadership roles and Silents will begin to age out. The more values-fixated issues will start to unfold more explicitly, and more in the "right" way, and the climax will be where Prophet leadership shines.

I almost never write posts this long. Hope it's not too long for people to consider.

Some misc. replies/comments:

Barbara -- I stand by my earlier post. I think liberalism has made progress this saeculum, advancing its cause in the 2T, plateauing during in the 3T, starting to wane a bit preparatory to the 4T, and now on hold until the next 2T. This is painting with a very broad brush, of course.

As to me personally, perhaps I come off as conservative, and indeed am in some ways, but mostly I'm a contrarian, which to me is proof in itself that the Left has been more influential than the Right in recent decades. When conservatives get cocky, the contrarian in me advances the opposing viewpoint.

As to the Culture Wars themselves, I thought E2K gave us the answer already -- it was a tie. The 4T needs to resolve them. Note that this does not invalidate my previous paragraph about long-term trends, though.


David, you wrote "we could have had a much worse 4T". We haven't had this one yet, I don't think the catalyst's ultimate outcome can yet be judged as to potential severity.

On religion: this 4T will be a test to see how "civilized" our society is in comparison to history. Can religion coexist with tolerance? The fear about "fundamentalism" is that there are perhaps cultures (or elements thereof) for whom this cannot be said. That's a definition for you, David McGuiness -- fundamentalism = religion with no tolerance for coexisting viewpoints in society --, and it makes them wrong according to American values.

I want to make a couple of comments. First, regarding the last Crisis, it was global from the beginning--the depression was a world-wide phenomenon that affected the crises in Germany and Japan, too. We simply decided to deal with it unilaterally in 1933 and stuck with that until 1940. Actually, the Civil War crisis had a global (or at least Atlantic) element as well. In Europe the North was seen as fighting for democracy, the South for aristocracy, and the North's victory led to universal male suffrage in every major European country within a few years. Not a coincidence.

Now I want to caution everyone about the clear belief, coming out in many posts, that because the Crisis may have begun, we are in sight of the end. That is not so. This will not be over in four years, and quite possibly not in 10 years. In a way the presence of Silents--especially Colin Powell, whose influence is in the ascendant--may help us go slow, until we have created the conditions for resolution.
Having said that. . .hmmmm. . .if we could wind it up even in ten years, I suppose there is a real chance that the Millennials could, by default, become Artists, like the Progressives. That will only happen, though, if the Xers usurp the hero role by enlisting en masse. Not too likely, it seems to me. But certainly food for thought.
I suspect other issues will be added on--domestic issues, economic issues, etc. Anyway. .. we won't be worrying about Congressmen and interns.
One more thing--the JFK assassination. I was 16. The traumatic effect was very similar. But because we were in a 1T, we put it behind us at once (with the help of Denial with a capital D) and moved ahead. We didn't even really care enough to find out who might have done it. Because we assumed institutions worked, it HAD to be two lone nuts (Oswald and Ruby.) In the same way, we tolerate lawlessness in 2Ts because we sense 1) the continuing strenght of our institutions and 2) it fits our mood. But this is different. We want to hunt them down and stop it. . .

Barbara asks me: "Who do you think won the Culture Wars?"


While neither side won an absolute and total victory, on the whole I believe we won -- that is, the left won. Actually, a progressive movement can't and shouldn't ever win an absolute and total victory, because conservatism is necessary to anchor the bones of society and keep it from disintegrating into chaos; the function of the progressive/conservative tug-of-war is to allow change in a manner consistent with the survival of public order. Which means the progressives have to win -- but not all at once.


That said, I think the left won, for the most part. Remember that the culture wars, arising from the Awakening, and as the name implies, were cultural more than political or institutional. They were a battle over how we think and feel, more than what we do. And how we think and feel has changed, radically and permanently, since the last High. Women now control their own sexual and reproductive behavior. Types of sexual behavior that were previously practiced only covertly and publicly condemned are now accepted. Roles for women in life have expanded enormously. Racial segregation and racism generally are now cultural taboos. America's religious expression has bloomed in countless new forms that aren't going to disappear. And environmentalism has permanently entered the national moral lexicon.


These are changes that aren't going to be reversed in the 4T or 1T ahead. Indeed, the last is a major Crisis issue and will become stronger than ever. But even those that aren't reinforced in that way will not be reversed. The Crisis brings cultural experimentation into disrepute -- but that means that the culture, as changed by the Awakening and Unraveling, remains in place, with neither further progress nor reaction permitted[/b].


There is only one exception to this rule, and that is that Unraveling-era behaviors that are disruptive of public order and public unity go into disrepute. But that, too, works in favor of preserving the left's gains during the culture wars, because it promotes (as indicated by the article linked by another poster on the changed attitudes of small-town Indianans toward New Yorkers) greater tolerance and understanding of the cultural right for the cultural left, of small town for big city. And that will in turn increase understanding from the other direction, because we only demonize the cultural right in reaction to being demonized ourselves.


We didn't win a complete and absolute victory, and for a while we're not going to win a lot more. But I do think we won.


David, I, too, was rather disturbed by Bill's suggestion that the Blue Zone was less ready for 4T than the Red Zone, and even more appalled by the reasoning on which this statement was based. There is nothing whatsoever 3T about Seattlites attempting to avoid directing wrath on ourselves rather than the enemy. It's as if Bill thinks we must be robotically bound to commit the mistakes of the last 4T, as if we had learned nothing from those mistakes or the related cultural shifts that have challenged racism and religious bigotry.


By that logic, we can find "fault" with the fact that states dominated by the capitalist industrial elite didn't secede from the Union when Roosevelt was elected.

I agree with you again, Brian. Besides, it is too early to tell who won the culture wars, as the event JUST happened. We will definitely know in a few years when the regeneracy begins. One thing I noticed is that at this point, it is the left that is asking the fundamental questions at this point. And once the nation gets over the shock, people will begin to ponder these questions.

I've been trying to focus my thoughts over the last several days. Ordinarily, it's not so hard, but there's just been too much rushing in all at once.

I heard the first word of "a plane hitting the WTC" as I pulled into my parking place at work Tuesday. I went inside and called my husband and told him to turn on the tv and see what happened. Ordinary 3T accident, tragic but visually amazing. You watch it and are glad it wasn't you in one of those offices. Then I hear the words, "Oh my! Was that a plane?" "What? What happened?" "Another plane just hit the other tower!" No accident, then, is my first thought. Who? is my second. Not Arabs, I think, not when the general sentiment toward them has been so much more favorable since the Gulf War. They wouldn't be so foolish. I have to hang up, get to work, the markets are going to open soon. Then the phone rings. "Something just hit the Pentagon!" "What?!?!" Suddenly it IS me and everyone else. We're under attack. What will be next? When will it stop?

I spent the first two days intellectualizing it all and the second two being very emotional about it. I've read what all of you have said, and I've read and listened to what the news has said, and I've sat for hours in the nearly complete silence at my job contemplating it. The following are my thoughts in no particular order:

I feel that this will be remembered as the catalyst for the 4T. I won't say that I don't think there will be some backsliding by some into 3T behavior, but I don't think it will be very tolerated by the majority. I think we've already had our mini-crises: Y2K and E2K, one of which was a practice run for global disaster and the other a practice run for civil war. Y2K, in and of itself, wound up being a non-event, but the system redundancy and modernization prompted by that scare is part of what is allowing so many of the financial and telecom businesses that were hit Tuesday to recover so quickly and the financial corporations have been quick to point that out in their emails and faxes.

On the other hand E2K was very scary. I truly believe that the end result was the best outcome considering the long term consequences. Had Bush not wound up as President, I think the vile religious right would have eventually whipped this country into civil war. Bush's election threw considerable ice water on the passions on the right and also started to wake up the left from their 3T dream state. Further, E2K revealed the true split in America...not truly half and half, but three thirds...those in the blue zone, those in the red, and those that just haven't found a reason to give a damn (the white zone?).

What Tuesday's events have done for these three zones is several things. First, the white zone now has something to give a damn about. Second, the blue zone finally got a jolt away from individualism and into communalism. (I have to agree with Bill and disagree with David: the red zone has indeed perceived the blue zone as lingering overly long in 3T mode for several years now.) Finally, it's sliced a good portion of the red zone away from it's radical right, thanks to the example of Bin Laden whose hate mongering compares to statements from the like of Falwell whom I truly believe would enjoy a civil war. Certainly there will be those who agree with the man, but they will, I predict, be looked upon as increasingly un-American and pro-terrorist.

As for the argument about whether Bush is a GC or not, no, he's not. While I think he is a good, honest, decent man who is doing and will continue to do his very best in this situation, and he is very good at exuding calm and patience and restraint when, I believe, he's as furious as the rest of us, he is completely unable to show his passion. Like many of his fellow early-wavers, he is still trying to be PC, still relying on the Silent voices in his ear. The GC will be able to convey both passion and strength and exhort us to do the impossible but necessary. He (or she) will not ask for restraint but for action. With so many people asking what can I do, a GC would have an answer.

Everyone wonders what the Silent influence will be. Well, for the most part we're in uncharted waters here. Congress was already 77% Missionary in 1929. In 1997, Congress was only 50% Boomer. The current one is likely a little more Boomer, but I seriously doubt it's 77%. I know that Dave Krein believes it was the presence of Artist influence that prevented a bad 4T for the British in the 19th century. Given the circumstances of this attack and the characteristics of the enemy, what the Silent presence in the government may do is drag this out much longer because more deference will be given to how others feel, but I'm not sure if they will be able to prevent it from "being bad" in the long run. Time will tell.

On signs that it's a 3T or a 4T, I see a few of both. What happens with Hollywood will be very telling. They may eventually premier questionable taste movies and tv shows, but if the box office and ratings plummet for such, they'll be forced to retrench. (FWIW, I feel even more strongly now than before that LOTR will play very well with audiences this winter given its 4T Heroic themes.)

One pretty significant thing I found interesting Turning-wise is the request to the SEC (since granted) by corporations and financials to be allowed to buy up anything investors sell on Monday to keep the market from tanking for the good of the country and its economy (normally this is a prohibited practice). So many of these firms lost people in the crashes that this has become about more than money to them. They have also indicated that any of the large investors who sell out on Monday are un-American and will be treated as such. Part of telling whether this is a 3T or a 4T will be how people respond to this action. If everyone assumes they are just doing it out of greed to keep themselves from losing business, it's still 3T. If everyone responds with gratitude for their patriotism in helping to assure that the country doesn't suffer depression, it's 4T. (FWIW, our office only had one client call and insist on selling out the minute the market opens.)

Also, Congress. If they can keep working together for the good of the country and not sniping at each other for the good of the party, we might be there. If they go back to potshots across each others' bows, we're not.

I heard people in the media say several times yesterday that even if they did know where the President was going, maybe they'd be better not to say. Now that's news! Perhaps eventually they'll stop reporting every move our military makes, too. Then I'd say 4T.

I've heard that some of the networks have received complaints that they keep showing the crashes and collapses because it's "disturbing." I say to those people, IT DAMN WELL SHOULD BE DISTURBING! Sticking your head in the sand and pretending everything's ok isn't going to change the fact that it's NOT ok. The more PC and 3T networks complied. Others didn't. If the country can't stand looking at what just happened, it doesn't have the stomach for what has to be done to stop it from happening again.

As for what's next, anyone who thinks we're going to dash out to some great military victory next week or next month is deluding themselves. I expect this to be at the least a ten year long campaign that will involve a lot of strategic planning and far more than just bombs and missiles. If that realization sinks in and is accepted, then it's 4T. If the demands for immediate unthinking, unplanned, ineffective action are resounding and listened to, then it's not.

If we stop and realize that it took 2-3 years of planning for the terrorists to do what they just did, then we have to realize that it will take at least that much for us to plan how to ultimately defeat them.

Dr. Lamb wonders, "Now, which one do you think applies better to this news item?"

Said "news item" refers to story "Feds: Atlanta May Have Been Target"

I'm not sure what to think here. What if it was a target? If it wasn't and the "Feds" are just trying to make the threat seem worse, why did the story use the word "may"?

At anyrate, the S&H scenario of a "Third Turning"/Inner-driven era:" response to a "terrorist threat" seems to me an accurate foreshasow of what is current occuring in the Bush White House.

They wrote in 1990, as you quoted:

"[T]he likely national response...would now stress caution, conciliation, and deferral. Silent cabinet officers would consult allies, form committees, review options, and invite full public discussion. After initiating multilateral negociations, leaders would generally try to wait things out."

One has to remember history here. How much "hate" was drummed up for the "evil hun" prior to our effort to "Save the world for Democracy" in 1917?

How much "flag waving" occured as we sent our boys "over there"?

Quite frankly, I'm seeing no difference today. This despite the enormity of this event that truly dwarfs the anything that occured previous to our entry into the "war to end all wars."

On the other hand, if Boomers currently held the reigns of power that folks like Colin Powell hold now...

Both Pakistan and Afghanistan would no longer exist today. And the bombs would currently be falling on Iraq.

So we are 3T, and deepening into it.

Ms. Liz, Mr. Hudson was kind is responding to my request about current generational makeup in the Bush cabinet, Supreme Court and Senate. But I'm broke, and he wants to be paid to do the House :smile: Who could blame him?

Do you have these numbers as you suggested yesterday?

Do you Mr. Strauss... Neil Howe... Anybody?

Help !!!!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2001-09-15 09:38 ]</font>

Re: the Culture Wars discussion going on while I was typing earlier.

Neither side was ever going to have total victory. Hopefully, the best parts of both will prevail. I'd keep an eye on polls that show a third of older Americans thinking the same way two-thirds of Millennials think for your answers on what issues will "win."

Marc, we cross posted. No, I don't have them, but I am going down the list of Senators and Congressmen and looking at their webpage bios. Will post when I'm done...or stop when someone else finds the info.

David, you make some points about the 3T/4T transition, as it affects the red-zone and blue-zone. Falwell's comments were totally (and outrageously) 3T, and cement him--and Pat Robertson--on the fringe. One yearns for the day when the media will simply start ignoring people like those two (on both sides).

It may be that the hardest-core partisans on both edges of the culture wars will be the ones who will linger in the 3T the longest. Libertarians (liberal or conservative) may have a difficult time, too. Lis may be right--as she so often is--about how the previously tuned-out people in both zones (maybe we should call it the red-white-and-blue zone), from everywhere, will be the ones who will embrace the 4T the most.

On another note, the Washington Post had a telling photo today, from yesterday's memorial service at the National Cathedral. It showed George Bush Sr. and Barbara sitting next to George Bush Jr., who had just finished his speech. Dad and Barbara filled the photo with an essential American-ness, a reassuring confidence, that was fine to see. Son looked like a student who had just received a trophy onstage, getting a hand-pat from his Dad.

Another thing I heard the other day that made me think: I was listening to the all-sports radio station in Toronto (it's the station I almost always have on) and one of the broadcasters, sportswriter Damien Cox (hockey writer for the Toronto Star and, I believe, either a late-wave Boomer or early-wave Xer) said that for years now he had been predicting/advocating that they'd phase out the national anthems at sporting events . . . but that for the first time this week he understood why they played them at all, and reversed his position.

Lis said:


I have to agree with Bill and disagree with David: the red zone has indeed perceived the blue zone as lingering overly long in 3T mode for several years now.


I can only guess at what you meant by that statement, Lis, but strictly speaking, it is very unlikely to be true. Most people in either zone don't think in terms of 3T/4T at all, and therefore those in the red can't have been thinking that about us in the blue.


If, however, what you mean is that those in the red zone have been critical of those in the blue for frivolous, pleasure-seeking behavior lacking in civic responsibility, then of course you're right. (And so are they.) But then, those of us in the blue zone tend to think of those in the red zone as engaging in blue-nosed, anti-freedom, anti-intellectual, and overly personal criticism based in antiquated codes of morality and equally lacking in civic responsibility. And we're right, too. So who's been 3T throughout this 3T? Obviously, both zones.


And both zones have recently gotten a wake-up call. Surely, public pleasure-seeking is going to become less extreme. Just as surely, divisive critiques of the sort Falwell and Robertson exhibited are going to become less prevalent. We are all entering the 4T, and all of these things have to change.


Private sexual morality isn't going to change, Lis, and isn't going to return to the pre-Awakening status. And urban dwellers aren't suddenly going to become less cosmopolitan, less sophisticated, and infused with small-town salt-of-the-earth virtue. But all such behavior -- AND the criticism of it -- has ceased to be front-page news. We have more important things to worry about.

On 2001-09-15 09:59, William Strauss wrote:
Falwell's comments were totally (and outrageously) 3T, and cement him--and Pat Robertson--on the fringe. One yearns for the day when the media will simply start ignoring people like those two (on both sides).

I agree completely. No one seems to be taking Falwell's statements very seriously now. The fact that he is a Silent is surprising (his behavior seems much more Boomerish), but also means that he *will* continue to be ignored. His statements caused a slight flurry of annoyance, or even amusement. but will quickly be forgotten as the 4T deepens. A few months ago, his statements would have caused an uproar among the Left/liberals. Not anymore. 3T behavior like that will be seen from time to time, of course, but like Lis said, will increasingly fall on deaf ears or be met with impatience and annoyance from everyone else.

It may be that the hardest-core partisans on both edges of the culture wars will be the ones who will linger in the 3T the longest.
Lis may be right--as she so often is--about how the previously tuned-out people in both zones (maybe we should call it the red-white-and-blue zone), from everywhere, will be the ones who will embrace the 4T the most.

The most previously tuned out people, as we know, are Xers. Having no deeply-held convictions from previous turnings, expect them to become the most deeply and swiftly involved in the 4T mindset. While they erected much of 3T culture, they will also be the first to let go of these things. Since at present they dominate the entertainment industry, expect also to see a major shift away from the gross-out/shock/celebrity-worship/freak show mentality, and toward upbeat and escapist harmless entertainment that comforts and provides an temporary escape during times of crisis. It would not surprise me to see Britney Spears going to entertain the troops and thus add her own sort of heroism.
Music has already, IMHO, made a nearly complete shift toward Crisis mode, as popular music is the cultural mode that targets the youngest audience, who are primarily now Millies. Many Xers are now listening to jazz and even Big Band, which is interesting, as this was the musical form introduced by the Lost and GIs, respectively. Jazz was very popular in the beginning of the last Crisis, but was soon replaced by the "Big Band" music of the 40s. It appealed because it allowed Americans to escape for a while and have fun. Edgy music is 3T music, and will not be well tolerated during the 4T, not because it's potentially morally offensive or even un-American (since partisan issues will not take a high priority), but simply because no one wants to think about the issues it raises when the world is at war.

Movies are now shifting rapidly, as S&H have observed many times. Lis mentioned that what happens in Hollywood now is extremely important in determining whether or not we are in a 4T. The fact that Hollywood is postponing its release of new, violent action movies out of respect for the victims of the 911 disaster is telling in itself. It is possible that when these films are released, audiences will not be flocking to see them.

Television, seemingly the last bastion of 3T entertainment, is also beginning to show shifts toward a more 4T mood. This is all happening very rapidly, and is dizzying and a little disconcernting to those who have become accustomed to less bland forms of entertainment.

The "bad, wild" Xers are meeting all this with resignation and even relief. They don't seem to resent the fact that they had a far shorter time in the pop culture limelight than Boomers did. Surprisingly, those complaining the loudest about the shift toward things more homey and American are the Millennials themselves! I think this may have a lot to do with their age, as a 4T naturally puts the brakes on self-discovery behaviors that come naturally to people just coming of age. Expect this temprorary rebelliousness to disappear as they age a bit more, and are old enough to make good on their true heroic natures.

Xers in particular seem to be involving themselves to a great degree in the rescue and clean-up effort, and are embracing family-oriented, midlife lifestyles with aplomb. This is the sort of thing they *want* to be involved in.

I want to add something else that I heard in a commentary yesterday on NPR. New Yorkers, who are primarily "blue zone," greeted President Bush yesterday with cheers and the waving of American flags. When New Yorkers start to get patriotic and welcoming of a conservative President, you know something must be up.

No one seems to care anymore that Bush may have "stolen" the election from Gore. I voted for Gore, but at this juncture am coming to realize Bush was probably the best choice at this time. While he may not be especially brilliant, I believe he is better able to mobilize and inspire Americans to action than Gore would have been. Gore might have been able to hold off the inevitable a bit longer, but I agree with the person here who said that had he been elected, this may have resulted in an uprising by the Red Zone, which would have deteriorated eventually into another Civil War. S&H have said that civil wars are far more potentially disastrous than other types of wars or crises, as by their nature, there is a lack of the solidarity and like-minded patriotism of the type seen during WWII.

So there you have my 2 cents.

_________________
Insanity is the only sane way to cope with an insane world.--RD LANGE

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Susan Brombacher on 2001-09-15 10:55 ]</font>

Brian, obviously what I mean is difficult to explain, since I had the same problem with David, but I'll try.

First, let me remind you that I live among the so-called red-zoners, even though I don't count myself one of them. I've probably been more of that in-between, "give me something to give a damn about" group the last 15 years before I found the 4T website. But I have plenty of opportunity to observe the people and attitudes around me, and often I try to give some of you guys on the coasts an idea of what really makes them tick as opposed to what you perceive. I was rabidly, passionately one of you when I was younger. I've learned to see that both sides have blind spots and serious flaws. I've also learned to see that both sides have things in common they haven't bothered to recognize in recent years. Last Tuesday, most found those things.

That said, let me see if I can explain what I meant by agreeing that the red-zone was, before Tuesday, more prepared for 4T and more in pre-seasonal mood than the blue-zone. One, the sense of community has been increasing steadily in the last several years. Two, more people from the coasts have a hard time seeing Millennial behavior among 16-20 year old crowd than anyone here. Three, you are correct, few people think in terms of Turnings, but they do think in terms of Winter, and there has been a lot of pre-Winter thinking here that I have seen little or no evidence of in the blue zone. Life has, over the last several years, stopped being one big party and has settled down to more seriousness here. Four, most of the Boomerish belligerance has been from the more youthful heartland members of the government, not the coasts. Five, we've commented time after time that while the Awakening began on the coasts and spread to the heartland, the Crisis seemed to be starting in the heartland and moving toward the coasts.

I could go on, but I hope that makes the point well enough that you can see what I meant. I'm just relieved that both sides seem finally to be on the same page...the important page.

Bush said today:

``I will not settle for a token act. Our response must be sweeping, sustained and effective. ... You will be asked for your patience, for the conflict will not be short. You will be asked for resolve, for the conflict will not be easy. You will be asked for your strength because the course to victory may be long,'' the president said.

And the tough part is, if we are all correct about the idea of a 4T, that those words are actually a major understatement.

Re: the Red and Blue Zones

Please remember that 12% of Bronx voters, 1 in 8, supported Bush last election. The numbers go up slightly for Manhattan and Brooklyn, rise to almost 1 in 4 for Queens, and Bush won almost half of the votes in Staten Island. In 1984, Reagan won 27% of Manhattan's vote, and more in the other Burroughs. Many of the Gore Voters were probably "Reagan Democrats".

My point is that one can't make blanket statements about everyone in a particular district being "red" or "blue". One shouldn't be surprised when the police, firefighters, and construction workers down at the rescue zone greet the President with warmth and a great display of patriotism. These are, to use the language of the last Awakening, "Hardhats".

For myself, my feelings are much more ambiguous. While I desire some sort of revenge, I also caution moderation. I want to see the people responsible for this pay, I don't want to inflict destruction far worse than what New York suffered on innocents who happen to belong to the same ethnic group as the perpetrators (who wants to bet that some guy in the DoD is looking into filling cruise missiles with jet fuel, even as we speak).

And while I appreciate the sympathy and support from the US, when they wave the US flag, I just don't see myself in it. Imagine a school filled with jocks, with one geeky intellectual kid who gets constantly picked on and bullied. Then one day, he breaks his leg, and all the jocks rush to help him out. That's sort of how I feel about America's treatment of New York. Are you guys supposed to be our friends or our enemies? I liked to here about Jerry Falwell's remarks: "what happened was a great tragedy, but it happened to New York because it is Eeeevilll." At least I know where _he_ stands.


Old Toby

Henry David Thoreau said once that there are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil for each one that strikes at the root. The apathy of the prior phase of history left all the effort of a better society to the government. In this new turning point, I believe that the citizenry will take a much more active role themselves in safegarding society. That may be the best thing that comes from this tragedy.

We can do are part by self censoring forms of media, entertainment and the like that run counter to the mood of America. It's both a free marlet idea, based on supply and demand, and common sense. Hollywood has filled our minds with senseless violence for years, as a form of entertainment. Sadly, we bought it.

Once more people refuse to demand such things, they will start to end. Imagine a future where we don't train our kids to kill. In this regard, see: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/8t9/8t9030.html

Each of us can do our part. Once the segment that attempts to profit from the hysteria and rage now approaches you, shun them. Don't encourage such marketing. Don't buy 9-11-01 on video. Don't replay the violence over and over. Don't romanticize the loss. Part of moving on, history wise, is to look forward. Remember the dead but don't dwell on the consumerism of terrorism.