Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Is the 911 Attack Triggering A Fourth Turning? - Page 31







Post#751 at 09-28-2001 09:37 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
09-28-2001, 09:37 AM #751
Guest

In america, tories and tax collectors were getting tarred and feathered as far back as 1765. And what about the Boston Massacre///1770///was that a 4T event?







Post#752 at 09-28-2001 09:48 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
09-28-2001, 09:48 AM #752
Guest

Leslie...great post.
America, I have looked at our union, and I have declared it weak.
The crisis hasnt come yet, but man, its coming. Theres alot of things that need to be worked out, before we continue to drown ourselves in World War II patriotism.
America needs a new vision. We cant continue to keep plumbing the past for our national conscience. Were gonna have to dig deep and find it.
In short, the USA needs a diaper change.







Post#753 at 09-28-2001 10:23 AM by JustinLong [at 32 Xer/Nomad from Chesapeake, VA joined Sep 2001 #posts 59]
---
09-28-2001, 10:23 AM #753
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
32 Xer/Nomad from Chesapeake, VA
Posts
59

I think we're jumping the gun. The Silents and Nomads are of like enough mind to want to fight to protect the nation, but Boomers still own the vision thing, and the real crisis will be about the meaning of America, with Boomers and the young Hero generation fighting to keep Americ really free, as in free speech, freedom for Democracy, freedom from authoritarian, totalitarian pressures to watch what we say, stay unified behind the President at all costs, etc.
This is what I'm saying.







Post#754 at 09-28-2001 10:29 AM by JustinLong [at 32 Xer/Nomad from Chesapeake, VA joined Sep 2001 #posts 59]
---
09-28-2001, 10:29 AM #754
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
32 Xer/Nomad from Chesapeake, VA
Posts
59

I have a question more than a reply. What kind of a generational constellation are we facing on the other side and how does this affect the course that the crisis is likely to take. A couple of things strike me about the other side. The suicide terrorists on the planes seem to have been young. Hero generation age. A generation carrying out the vision of their elders much as our own hero generation will carry out the vision of our elders. Ossama bin Laden and his leadership generation (though only in their forties) seem the profile of the older idealist awakening cultural values Prophet generation type. Two prophet generations (One American and one Islamic) facing each other seems like the scenario for a truly horrific crisis to me. Are there any thoughts on this.
As a missiologist who has studied Afghanistan for a long time, and who subscribes to S&H theory, here's my humble opinion:

Afghanistan:

Crisis = 1900-1933: After independence, massive revolt by clerics and others struggling over identity of Afghanistan

High = 1933-1973 Single Ruler, widening freedoms, establishment of new constitution

Awakening around 1978, during the Soviet invasion (poor Sovs, they I think were in an unravelling at the time, and in an unravelling vs Awakening, Awakening wins)

Now = Unravelling

Crisis = about 20 years from now







Post#755 at 09-28-2001 10:33 AM by JustinLong [at 32 Xer/Nomad from Chesapeake, VA joined Sep 2001 #posts 59]
---
09-28-2001, 10:33 AM #755
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
32 Xer/Nomad from Chesapeake, VA
Posts
59

Regarding Brian Rush & others' exchange about RR... as Brian defines it, ("evangelical fundamentalism") is a very small minority. Evangelicals number only 14% of the country, growing more through births (demographic change) than conversion (they are actually losing 27,000 p.a.). However, I would disagree in saying that RR is confined to the Evangelical camp. It is also very much alive in the Independent fundamentalist churches as well as in the Pentecostal churches, both of which would not claim the Evangelical banner.







Post#756 at 09-28-2001 10:34 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
09-28-2001, 10:34 AM #756
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Leslie contributes? I think we're jumping the gun. The Silents and Nomads are of like enough mind to want to fight to protect the nation, but Boomers still own the vision thing, and the real crisis will be about the meaning of America, with Boomers and the young Hero generation fighting to keep Americ really free, as in free speech, freedom for Democracy, freedom from authoritarian, totalitarian pressures to watch what we say, stay unified behind the President at all costs, etc.

Agreed and welcome.

I?m seeing a bounce back from the extreme emotion of September 11. The first instinct towards brute force solutions is fading, and a sincere but intense debate is ongoing. The feel on this forum is not quite the same as 3T. We seem to be no more in agreement, but there is an intensity and edge (perhaps in my imagination) in that the debates will have to be resolved. There was a decade gap between the 4T mood shift (the 29 crash) and the 4T final call to arms (Pearl Harbor). During that interval, a clear consensus towards big government world power arrived. The debates on this forum, and around the local office water cooler, in the news rooms, and the federal buildings, are shaping the large scale approach and objectives.

I do hope the Boomers and the vision thing will come forward. I am coming to respect Dubya?s approach. It is technically respectable, but may lack depth and heart. It isn?t finalized, and to a great degree hidden from the public, so it is too soon to judge it. Still, I don?t think he has ?the vision thing.? Then again, I don?t think ?the vision? will be clear for 5 to 10 years. Once we have a feeling for where we have to go, a Jefferson, Lincoln or FDR might articulate it.

HopefulCynic claims.. I don't and have not asked that you adopt my view of the RR, Brian. I do simply point out that any successful settlement of the 4T will probably have to be at least somewhat palatable to them. They are not a fringe group or a dying minority, for good or bad.

Hmmm? The Taliban has put the concept of religious fundamentalists enforcing their beliefs using secular power on the table. The concept is not too far from secular fascist (1930s Italy) or borderline fascist extremists (1950s era McCarthyism) pushing their beliefs using secular powers. It would not shock me if the new 4T vision included a renewal of old concepts like separation of church and state, and more emphasis on the Bill of Rights. It is far too soon to make predictions. However, I wouldn?t assume that because the religious right was a player in the 3T, it will continue to be so. One of the themes echoing about is tolerance, respect and coexistence with those of other racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds, or an international peacekeeping force will make you show tolerance and respect at gunpoint. If this theme continues to dominate international problems, it is apt to be applied here at home as well. Certainly, even in the first ugly moments after the towers fell, the government was preaching civil rights for Muslims and Arabs in America.

Every four score and seven years, a new birth of freedom. Recent crises have had themes of increased human rights, along with other themes. This one looks to be no different. The paradox is that forcing others to change their culture, even if we are forcing them to respect human rights, might be considered a human rights violation. We ought not to be going around changing other people?s cultures. Dubya is being faced with a case of this paradox now. We can?t force a new government on the Afghans. We can only gently encourage them (at gunpoint) to truly decide what they wish to be.

Several years back, on the Gettysburg Discussion Group?s forum, the head of the Park Service at Gettysburg listed his themes for the congressionally mandated ?causes? display at the new visitor?s center. ?Slavery caused succession, and succession caused the war.? ?A new birth of freedom.? This was perhaps an improvement on the old subtle unofficial theme, ?The high water mark of the Confederacy.? Still? I wrote back a lengthy post looking at the war from four perspectives: agricultural civilization v industrial, fourth turning, animal behavior, and competition between rival ideas. This post to the GDG ended as follows?

I am more interested in "what causes war?" than "what caused the Civil War?" Thus, I am dissatisfied by the traditional answers bound to the specifics of a single era. Traditional historians too often teach answers focused to justify their home culture. Both traditional culture centered answers, from the broader perspectives above, are clearly incomplete, self serving, and provoke perpetual rancor. To break eternal misunderstandings, a step back to a larger perspective is called for, or multiple larger perspectives. Human conflict, especially for the great wars that transform societies, is a complex business.

No way we can a new visitor's center be focused on teaching such diverse perspectives as wave theory, cycle theory, animal behavior and the concept of ideas competing through genes. The full theories can't be taught, but the perspectives might be hinted at. The visitor's center might ask questions rather than attempt cultural indoctrination. What sort of political process and debate led up to open war? What was the role of western expansion in provoking the war? Should we fight economic wars, to gain or retain land and resources? What was the role of democracy and human rights in causing the war? Can a people, not ready and able to free themselves, be given freedom by an outside agency? Should we fight wars to expand human rights? At what point can a culture's values be deemed so bankrupt as to justify destroying the culture? Should we fight wars of cultural extinction?

As one curious about The Third Wave, The Fourth Turning, human behavior and the evolution of ideas, I don't consider these questions irrelevant. They do not have pat answers. No museum can or should try to provide pat answers to such questions. The task ought to be to ask the questions in such a way as to avoid any suggestions that the answers are easy and automatic, or that 'errors' are not dangerous. Yet, I have not seen any indication that the 'causes' issue is really being considered in great depth according to modern multidiscipline scholarship. We've got Civil War 'experts' sticking with one of the partisan period pat answers.

At minimum, Dr. Latschar's quick little sound bite, "a new birth of freedom" might be expanded with a hint that the conflicts are not necessarily over. The great questions of the time need not be unnecessarily encrusted with thick layers of dust.

It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.?







Post#757 at 09-28-2001 11:02 AM by angeli [at joined Jul 2001 #posts 1,114]
---
09-28-2001, 11:02 AM #757
Join Date
Jul 2001
Posts
1,114


"1. The religious element of this Crisis is what could set us on the road to an internal conflict (a la the Civil War) rather than external conflict (a la WW2)."

Oh, I agree. I hate this. But I agree. Sadly, you and I will be on opposite sides of this religious conflict. I say sadly because I have a lot of friends on both sides and IMHO, we have more in common than we do in opposition.

"2. Actually I don't think the conservatives got the church until the period of the Unravelling."

That's possible. The mad abandonment of the mainstream churches took place in the 70s though. Isn't that the Awakening still?

"Usually, it seems to me, conservatives win out on theological matters the closer one gets to a crisis."

Er, I don't know that you've won, precisely. I think that up til maybe the last 5 years or so liberals have abandoned the theological field wholesale. This is changing, though only really slowly.

And in the case of the Civil War, it was the liberal abolitionists who won out on theological matters in the long term.

In the end we may win the day, because conservative theological politics focuses on regulating moral behavior in regards to sexual behavior. Liberal theological politics is more about economic and social justice. Feeding the poor, not telling them who not to have sex with.

I think in the Crisis, we just won't care so much who sleeps with whom because it will be way secondary to helping people survive. Some conservative churches will be able to make the shift in priorities. Some already are. The ones that won't will become increasingly fringe.

(The Catholic Church is the wacky exception, embracing both liberal and conservative priorities all along the cycle, feeding the poor *and* telling them who not to have sex with. But then they've been around a long time.)








Post#758 at 09-28-2001 11:21 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
09-28-2001, 11:21 AM #758
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

JustinLong proposes? As a missiologist who has studied Afghanistan for a long time, and who subscribes to S&H theory, here's my humble opinion:

Afghanistan:

Crisis = 1900-1933: After independence, massive revolt by clerics and others struggling over identity of Afghanistan

High = 1933-1973 Single Ruler, widening freedoms, establishment of new constitution

Awakening around 1978, during the Soviet invasion (poor Sovs, they I think were in an unravelling at the time, and in an unravelling vs Awakening, Awakening wins)

Now = Unravelling

Crisis = about 20 years from now




This has been my understanding as well. I see the Talaban and Bin Ladin?s people as prophet archetypes that think an awakening is the normal and proper spiritual state for a nation to be in. Their unraveling likely vastly disappoints them. (It is, of course, from their perspective, the United States? corrupting influence that pushed their culture from awakening to unraveling.) The only place I?d nit-pick Justin is that we have an unraveling nation forced onto center stage in a world entering crisis. Such a collision might cause an anomaly. This might possibly take the form of a forced way early crisis, bringing them into sync with the Western cycles.

Alternately, Dubya?s coalition might plausibly end Afghan support of terrorism, at which point the rest of the world might ignore Afghanistan indefinitely. The temporary forced crisis would fade back to unraveling. They might continue to argue futilely for another 20 years before a truly stable government can establish itself.

The latter scenario makes me a bit pessimistic about the chances of our encouraging a stable Afghan government. I?m sure there are other possibilities.







Post#759 at 09-28-2001 11:35 AM by angeli [at joined Jul 2001 #posts 1,114]
---
09-28-2001, 11:35 AM #759
Join Date
Jul 2001
Posts
1,114

What? they had a 40 year high?







Post#760 at 09-28-2001 11:42 AM by Mr. Reed [at Intersection of History joined Jun 2001 #posts 4,376]
---
09-28-2001, 11:42 AM #760
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Intersection of History
Posts
4,376

On 2001-09-28 09:35, angeli wrote:
What? they had a 40 year high?
Maybe they were all high off of opium and heroin for 40 years. :grin:
"The urge to dream, and the will to enable it is fundamental to being human and have coincided with what it is to be American." -- Neil deGrasse Tyson
intp '82er







Post#761 at 09-28-2001 12:39 PM by Opusaug [at Ft. Myers, Florida joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
09-28-2001, 12:39 PM #761
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts
7

(yah, I changed my username, was getting annoyed with the nick)

On 2001-09-28 07:37, Justin'79 wrote:
In america, tories and tax collectors were getting tarred and feathered as far back as 1765. And what about the Boston Massacre///1770///was that a 4T event?
Thanks, Justin. I've been trying to imagine what 3T would be like post-911 if that wasn't the catalyst, and you've just pinned down the example I should have seen immediately.

The Boston Massacre was a 3T event according to S&H. Radicals like Paul Revere (a Liberty/Nomad, 1735, who immortalized the event with his engraving, and first called it a "Massacre") tried to sieze the moment to stir up anti-British sentiment and start the Revolution. Awakener Samuel Adams was probably right behind him, but most of the rest of the generations of the time (Awakeners, Liberty, and especially the still-young Republicans) weren't ready yet. They also had to contend with Enlighteners like Samuel Johnson, Ebenezer Gay, and Cadwallader Colden, some of whom were trying to make deals after the war started in 1775.

The best example is probably of Revere's fellow Liberty/Nomad, John Adams. Few nomads ever had to endure the villification he received when he defended the British officers who led the Massacre, and won the case. Yet this very same man would, in six short years, agitate for independence like no other in the Continental Congress, and his patriotism and abundant management and diplomatic skills would earn him election as our first Vice President and second President. But back in 1770, he still very much considered himself a British subject, and would never think of severing the ties with the motherland.

Although I'm still leaning toward 911 being the catalyst, with this example I'm a lot more unsure of it now. After all, the Massacre occured in March, 1770, and the Crisis (according to S&H) began with the Boston Tea Party in December, 1773. That's around 45 months. Count forward 45 months from 9/11/01, and you arrive right in the middle of 2005. I guess we have yet to see if we're early 4T, or just getting primed and ready for it.
Christopher O'Conor
13er, '68 cohort







Post#762 at 09-28-2001 01:14 PM by Opusaug [at Ft. Myers, Florida joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
09-28-2001, 01:14 PM #762
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts
7

On 2001-09-28 08:33, JustinLong wrote:
Regarding Brian Rush & others' exchange about RR... as Brian defines it, ("evangelical fundamentalism") is a very small minority. Evangelicals number only 14% of the country, growing more through births (demographic change) than conversion (they are actually losing 27,000 p.a.). However, I would disagree in saying that RR is confined to the Evangelical camp. It is also very much alive in the Independent fundamentalist churches as well as in the Pentecostal churches, both of which would not claim the Evangelical banner.
I'm beginning to see that difference in definitions too. I also include in the RR Catholics (almost always Republicans) who have for a long time denounced the near-Marxist prattle of some of our clergy. (The worst of which were the disasterous attempts at Liberation Theology by the Jesuit order - there was no "near" in their Marxism.)

As I explain to my children when a sermon slips outside the boundries of my politics: the clergy must preach about God what is God's Will, while we must give to Caesar what is Caesar's. And since in a democracy we are all, in effect, Caesar, we each must decide what is in the best interests of ourselves, our families, our communities, our states, and our nation. It doesn't necessarily have to be totally benevolent or pacifistic. (Hmm... this paragraph is a bit off-topic, but I'll leave it in.)

In any event, Mr. Rush, if your definition of RR is that strict and limited, so be it. But that brings up another question: it seems as if you respect or fear the power and influence of the RR on the one hand, while defining it so narrowly on the other. If it's as limited as you say, it can't be very important or at least significant enough to worry about. Heck, if I were to understand and accept our definition, I would opposed the RR, and it would be so marginalized as to be irrelevant. We can't have it both ways, can we? Which is it - a small minority, or a force to be dealt with?
Christopher O'Conor
13er, '68 cohort







Post#763 at 09-28-2001 01:37 PM by Kjirsti75 [at Seattle, WA joined Sep 2001 #posts 10]
---
09-28-2001, 01:37 PM #763
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Seattle, WA
Posts
10

Regarding the RR discussion: I am a member of a very conservative "Reformed" (a.k.a. Calvinistic) denomination of Presbyterians. We have roots in a fundamentalistic tradition but the focus of the denomination has shifted from lifestyle-based decision-making (i.e. no drinking, no dancing, etc.) to a more philosophically-oriented ideal of having a "Reformed worldview" and proceeding from an inner knowledge (due to extensive bible study and reading Reformation-era theologians) of what is right and wrong. There's more to it than that but I don't feel up to the length of explanation it would probably take.

However, here is a thought: S&H mention at one point that the saecular cycle in inner cities is about one Turning ahead of the mainstream nation - their Crisis started sometime in the '80s and the proliferation of school uniforms and extreme security was an example of the "paranoia" about safety that happens during 4T.

In my observations (as a member of a religious subculture), it would appear that the subculture that the RR inhabit may be about one Turning *behind* the mainstream culture. For example: as the mainstream culture experienced Awakening in the late 60's and early 70's, most of my parents' generation (Boomers) in the denomination married very early (19 - 22 on average) and settled down to have (large) families (High-era behavior). The overriding concerns in the church were about the "fundamentals" of drinking, dancing, watching movies, and listening to rock & roll music (all of these forbidden, of course). However, sometime in the mid-80's, a large group of these 30-something parents of elementary and middle schoolers realized that their lives were all about form and none about substance. They proceeded to an "Awakening" through that decade and much of the next, where they questioned all of those principles and found them wanting, and, en masse, joined churches that were "Reformed" (all about inner truths, principles, and "worldview" rather than following static behavioral norms), to the horror of the older generation (who later followed them to the new churches).

Now, as the children of these people are attaining their own adulthood (late-wave Xers and first-wave Millies), they have been casting aside all such "Awakening" principles and partying in excess as they gather in Christian colleges. As a whole, the community seems to have recently discovered a new sense of disillusionment with the ideals that were all the rage ten years ago. (Very much similar in feeling to the mainstream culture in the early '80s.)

I suppose this is a little off the topic of whether or not the 4T has arrived, but it might explain why you will continue to hear 3T-type rumblings from the evangelical community . . . we've barely begun our subcultural Unraveling.







Post#764 at 09-28-2001 01:46 PM by Ben Weiss '71 [at St. Paul, MN joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
09-28-2001, 01:46 PM #764
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
St. Paul, MN
Posts
7

On Afghanistan: Given the amount of outside interference in their affairs, I'd be surprised if their saeculum wasn't completely disrupted.

The Northern Alliance isn't worse than the Taliban, but may not be much better. It represents the last vestiges of the pre-Taliban government, which wasn't so much a government as a bunch of warlords fighting for control, of which the recently assassinated leader was one. They also weren't terribly helpful to women, although they weren't as actively misogynist as the Taliban. That said, I completely agree that we need all the on-the-ground allies in Afghanistan that we can get. (I tend to think it's stupid to target either bin Laden or the Taliban before we have all our evidence in place--I'm a lawyer, after all--but the Taliban certainly richly deserves whatever opposition can be thrown at it.)

Interestingly, the Silents I've spoken with are far more likely than Xers to think that this crisis is so severe that civil rights can and should be sacrificed. But my experience could be skewed by the fact that all the Silents that I've talked to have been Jewish relatives, who have a lot of anti-Arab feeling left over from wars of past decades. (My mother, for example, thought it was a bad thing that so many Arab-Americans had responded to the FBI's call for tranlators!)







Post#765 at 09-28-2001 02:00 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
09-28-2001, 02:00 PM #765
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Chris:


But that brings up another question: it seems as if you respect or fear the power and influence of the RR on the one hand, while defining it so narrowly on the other. If it's as limited as you say, it can't be very important or at least significant enough to worry about. Heck, if I were to understand and accept our definition, I would opposed the RR, and it would be so marginalized as to be irrelevant. We can't have it both ways, can we? Which is it - a small minority, or a force to be dealt with?

Actually, strange as this may seem, it really is both.


It's a minority -- a rather large one, not a small one, I think closer to 30% than the 14% that someone posted earlier, but still a minority -- and there is really no danger that the actual religious right agenda is going to be implemented, certainly not nationwide. Even the successes in local governments and school boards that were achieved while people weren't paying attention are being reversed. The danger from this political movement is indirect.


It comes from the willingness of the Republican Party to use the movement for its own purposes, and of evangelicals to be used. Evangelical voters are part of what might be called the Reagan Coalition, in which they join with economic conservatives and free-marketers to form a voting majority, which neither group is by itself.


This has roots in the Awakening, and is to a large degree the fault of the Democrats. By allowing themselves to become identified with cultural progressives, even those of an extreme bent, the Democrats in the Awakening alienated the evangelicals, who prior to this usually voted for that party, not for Republicans. This left the door open for Republicans to woo the evangelicals by giving lip-service to their ideals, which Reagan did with particular skill, appealing as well to the patriotism that is also important within the subculture. Now, neither he nor his successors has done much to overturn abortion rights or gay rights or sexual liberties or any of the other things the religious right wants to do, but the Republicans have given the subculture respect, and the Democrats have given it only disdain. Thus they vote Republican, and thus the economic right wing has gained power and influence beyond its own numbers. Democrats have won elections since then only by 1) veering to the right themselves, 2) taking advantage of GOP behavior and policies that caused the evangelicals to question the value of the alliance, and 3) running candidates who were themselves from evangelical churches even though they did not espouse the political agenda of the religious right.


Obviously that's something I'd like to see reversed. I'd like to see a national electoral referendum on the economic policies pursued by the Reagan administration and all subsequent administrations (including Clinton's) without the distorting impact of the culture war. I believe those policies would be rejected. I would also like to see one of the parties resume a progressive role. Doesn't matter which one. They've both done it in the past at different times in history. But in recent elections we've had no major progressive party, and that means our options at the polls were limited in ways I think they shouldn't be.


For this reason and also because of the harm the evangelical subculture does to the spirit of those under its control, particularly children and women, I would be happy to see it discredited to the point that no political party is willing to give it even lip service, and to the point that its own members question the doctrines and agenda.


If HopefulCynic is right about the changes going on in the evangelical community -- and he may well be; I haven't had anything to do with that community since the 1970s, so his knowledge is fresher -- then this appears to be happening already. And so if we must go to war, I'm glad that at least it's with a bunch of religious fanatics. Perhaps that will provide the country an object lesson, and hasten the process.







Post#766 at 09-28-2001 02:32 PM by angeli [at joined Jul 2001 #posts 1,114]
---
09-28-2001, 02:32 PM #766
Join Date
Jul 2001
Posts
1,114


"In my observations (as a member of a religious subculture), it would appear that the subculture that the RR inhabit may be about one Turning *behind* the mainstream culture."

Oh!
yes that would match what I've noticed. The Evangelical friends I have are ... well, changing, but not in step with the way other people are changing. My best friend from 5th grade is an Xer Evangelical Christian who is much more Boomer-like in her struggle to deal with lifestyle questions and how can I reconcile the career I love (she's a musician) with the family I want. (Xer women don't angst over this, they just do it).









Post#767 at 09-28-2001 03:00 PM by DOC 62 [at Western Kentucky joined Sep 2001 #posts 85]
---
09-28-2001, 03:00 PM #767
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Western Kentucky
Posts
85

Mr. Rush, since by your own admission you have had nothing to do with the RR since the 70's, you are at least 20 years out of touch. I gather you have little if any interaction (other than this discussion board) with members of the RR. This puts you in good company. You are joined by as much as 90% of the "mainstream" media.

I am opposed to abortion. Tell me how it is not ending a human life? This would put me in league with the RR. It also represents the opinion of about 50% of the country (and larger percentages of young people.) On the other hand, I am opposed to the death penalty. Tell me how this is not ending a human life? I think this would put me at odds with your definition of the RR. It also puts me at odds with slightly over 50% of the country (maybe more after 911).

I am not opposed to teaching the biology of reproduction in schools. I am opposed to teaching any method of preventing pregnancy other then abstaining from intercourse until marriage. Again this puts me on the side of the RR. However, I am opposed to official prayer in schools. What few remember is the school prayer ruled unconstitutional by the Sepreme Court was a prayer to be recited daily in all schools in New York state. A state board of education should not be teaching my children how to pray. I am not opposed to moments of silence or individual or student lead prayer, however. This puts me in the majority, I believe. It also puts me in opposition to your definition of the RR.

It is correct to say the RR as you describe it is marginalized and shrinking. It is wrong to say the influence or ideas of the RR will not play a major role in the upcoming 4T.







Post#768 at 09-28-2001 03:09 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
09-28-2001, 03:09 PM #768
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Doc62:
I am opposed to abortion. Tell me how it is not ending a human life? This would put me in league with the RR. It also represents the opinion of about 50% of the country (and larger percentages of young people.)

In the interests of not diverting this thread further than has already happened, I will not answer your question here; if you wish to start an abortion thread I will be happy to do so there.


If you mean that about 50% of the country is "opposed to" abortion in the sense of wishing to see it recriminalized, then I am quite sure you're mistaken. If you mean that about 50% of the country is personally against abortion and would not choose to have one or counsel another to have one, regardless of whether they want it made illegal again, then you may be right, but that by itself is not a religious right position. Neither is your opposition to the death penalty.


I am not opposed to teaching the biology of reproduction in schools. I am opposed to teaching any method of preventing pregnancy other then abstaining from intercourse until marriage. Again this puts me on the side of the RR.

Yes, I believe it does. But I think a substantial majority of the country disagrees with you.


However, I am opposed to official prayer in schools. What few remember is the school prayer ruled unconstitutional by the Sepreme Court was a prayer to be recited daily in all schools in New York state. A state board of education should not be teaching my children how to pray. I am not opposed to moments of silence or individual or student lead prayer, however. This puts me in the majority, I believe. It also puts me in opposition to your definition of the RR.

Correct again.


It is correct to say the RR as you describe it is marginalized and shrinking. It is wrong to say the influence or ideas of the RR will not play a major role in the upcoming 4T.

I fail to see how those two statements can coexist, frankly.







Post#769 at 09-28-2001 03:11 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
09-28-2001, 03:11 PM #769
Guest

I've been cruising Amazon.com. I thought that these reviews of "Fourth Turning" may be of interest.
************************************
Page 273 - more than prophetic, September 25, 2001
Reviewer: Todd from Vancouver, WA United States
Acquiring a copy of this book after Sept. 11, 2001 was EXTREMELY difficult, but I got one and read it straight through. Chilling is page 273 and its clairvoyant description of what happened in New York. Even more disturbing is what could happen after.

What I like most is that this book is NOT some silly psychic prediction of the future (e.g. the inaccurate and some times completely wrong Nostradamus.) - it just observes trends in history, categorizes them, then postulates what might happen based on this "loop" we seem to be in.

In the same vein would be Frank Miller's 'Give Me Liberty' graphic novel - another vivid portrayal of a "fourth turning" scenario.

Read 'The Fourth Turning' for yourself, if you can find a copy.
**************************************
Vindication, September 22, 2001
Reviewer: A reader from Orange, CA USA
An editorial from a publication above smugly remarks, "...can you blame these guys for wanting to make impending peril as exciting as possible? After all, they think we are headed toward 'events on par with the Revolution, the Civil War, or World War II' in the next 20 years."

9-11-01. They were right.
*********************************
Unwarranted Optimism, September 22, 2001
Reviewer: Sean F Keating (see more about me) from Nitro, WV United States
I re-read this book the weekend after the attack on New York. William Strauss was a guest on Coast-to-Coast AM (a radio show) and I came away with a couple of thoughts.
First, They have very nicely described how history has a tendency to repeat, as Winston Churchill observed. I do not think the events in a period are the same as a generational response to those events.

We in the USA have spent the past 30+ years trying to abolish community, promote self-gratification, and generally raise a society of consumers bent on globalism. Witness the drastic decline in these generations' involvement in community groups like the Boy/Girl Scouts and other service organizations.

Gen-X (myself included), and the Millenium generation have had credentialism and materialism pounded into them. As several tv and radio pieces have shown, both groups are cynical and generally self-centered. The prediction that these people will rise to the level of the GI-Generation or those who died for the Cival War or Revolutionary causes is optimism taken to an extreme. The prediction of an era of conflict is probably inevitable. The prediction that we have the people today to do what was done in the past is probably fantasy. Where in the past "4th Turnings" was the experience of Korea, Viet Nam, the Cold War, Globalism, and an unrepentant consumer society? That will be pivotal this time around.

Overall, a good thought-provoking book. Just dont look for solid answers in it. I do recommend this book, it is a good read, and worth the time. Another take on "the farther back you look, the further ahead you can see..."
******************************************
The Book That Saw The Future, September 21, 2001
Reviewer: Chris Marrou from San Antonio, Texas USA
Strauss and Howe wrote this book in the 1990s about America's crisis points in history (among them - The Revolutionary War, Civil War, and the Great Depression/WWII). In doing so, they showed how each crisis comes at about a 70 year interval - approximately the length of a human life. The reason, they surmise, is that each 70 years includes a full set of human generations - four groups that each approach life differently.

In writing about the past crises, they also forecasted the next one, which they said would come after the start of the century, would be an extension of earlier problems but would still come as a surprise to us because of its scope, and would be something that "turned" our society around after a period of decline and made it stronger. If September 11, 2001 wasn't that crisis, I hate to see what's coming next.

The good news? Strauss and Howe say the high school generation of today is a replica of the "greatest generation" that got us out of World War Two.

If you really want to understand what's going to happen to this country in the next few years and how we'll react, this is the book.
******************************************
MAKES NOSTRADAMUS LOOK LIKE AN AMATEUR, September 17, 2001
Reviewer: andy todes (see more about me) from Philadelphia, PA United States
At the urging of my uncle, I read this book back in 1999.

In light of the horrific murders of Sep 11, 2001 in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania, it takes on a chilling tone.
******************************************
It is the 4th Turning, September 14, 2001
Reviewer: Ed Khim from Montgomery, AL United States
I read this book over a year ago and after this recent terrorist incident, I pulled it off the shelf and looked up the chapter on the fourth turning. It was almost prophetic. The previous chapter discusses an unraveling in American history, lack of morality, an unraveling of society, norms, and customs, decadence in basic courtesy and customs. This then leads or leaves open a potential for a cataclysmic event which revives the American Spirit and a revival of common customs and courtesies. Just witnessing the generosity and pulling together of the american people in helping and assisting the victims is overwhelming. A revival of the patriotic spirit has come about. I am rereading this book and I am highly recommending it to others to read also. At the time I read this book I doubted the potential of the cataclysmic event ever taking place. I thought it would never happen in my lifetime. After September 11, 2001 I realized it just happened. Life in America and the world will never be the same. This is the fourth turning. READ THIS BOOK!!!
****************************************
Here we are., September 14, 2001
Reviewer: A reader from Santa Monica, CA USA
I just wanted to say the events of 9/11 shows the insight of this book.

Something to chew on.







Post#770 at 09-28-2001 03:13 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
09-28-2001, 03:13 PM #770
Guest

Also see below.

Amazon.com Sales Rank: 13

(for Fourth Turning).

Looks like the book is selling like hotcakes.







Post#771 at 09-28-2001 03:14 PM by Barbara [at 1931 Silent from Pleasantville joined Aug 2001 #posts 2,352]
---
09-28-2001, 03:14 PM #771
Join Date
Aug 2001
Location
1931 Silent from Pleasantville
Posts
2,352

Greetings, all. Whew, I need to take the time to say that I've really been enjoying sitting back and reading your posts here. I love to see those of you questioning and supposing. Hopefully, we'll all hang in there with our divergent views and coexist, for the better.

Glad to see you back posting, Angeli. We need your perspective, that of an honest-to-goodness observer via your time overseas and your excellent writing talent. So many others to mention, too.

Stonewall Patton, Justin'79, Justin Long, Leslie, Bob Butler, Chris'68, Craig '84, Smcd, Kjirti75, Ben Weiss: fabulous posts. I hope you give us more to read along those lines. Again, I like it that you are questioning, as have Donna, Robert Reed, Virgil, Marc, in their own ways. And others, certainly, your names just escape me right this second, sorry.

HopefulCynic, to answer the questions you had of me yesterday, I think you and I may share more views than not on this, dear. While I've had for some time now the impression that Kennedy was hoping and looking hard for a way to rid us of the Vietnam quagmire, let me suggest a quite engrossing and excellent book I'm now reading, by our own Prof. David Kaiser, titled American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson and the Origins of the Vietnam War, Harvard U Press, 2000. I heartily chorus Virgil's recommendation of this book. If you can't or don't choose to purchase it, get it from your library, get an inter-library loan for it if you have to.

So far, Kaiser's extent of nitty-gritty research appears to rival the other book I'm currently into, James Bamford's Puzzle Palace, which I'm also trying to finish so I can read his newest book, Body of Secrets. While Bamford's books concern the NSA and intel communities, both authors should be admired and respected for their exhaustive use of FOIA in bringing forward what I consider to be indisputable Truths. I respect that. It ain't easy.

Hopeful, I share your Nomadic respect for Ike. I voted for him twice (and I also voted for Goldwater, curiously enough). I was being cynical in my post about Ike's golfing(I've posted before of my admiration for Ike in another thread, before 911, and erred in not repeating those in my post you referenced; I didn't want to be redundant.)

In retrospect, in many ways, I see Ike as a complicit puppet caught up in the balancing act you mentioned, which I consider was ultimately more powerful than his own influence, but he did try to exert himself when he felt he could. It seems to me really odd that he was ever thrust into politics at all. He was a true independent, a reasonably selfless servant, mediator, peace lover really, and ultimately not a powerful presence as President. He definitely did do some good things domestically, went out on limbs a few times. And as to foreign relations, I believe history didn't let him get to do at all what he wanted, which was to de-esculate and coexist, although I also think he lacked the power and presence to get it done, too. While I lived through his 8 years thinking everything was all-in-all hunky-dory, I have since come to believe otherwise. There were constant tensions and fires to put out. He successfully shepherded our passage but he was not the navigator. His legacy as to Vietnam, which I believe Kaiser's book will spell out for you, set the stage for Kennedy's (I think) courageous but fatal attempt to go, "Wait a minute. Hold on. Just what is this we are doing here?"

But, yes, Ike did more than just play golf. However, he did *alot* of work on the golf course, and alot of thinking, I imagine. I suspect his abilities to mediate between the divergent and passionate voices of those times will forever go unfully appreciated.

But, read Kaiser's book, Hopeful. I prefer it, so far, to Halberstein's Best and Brightest in fact, although I would recommend that book and McMaster's Dereliction of Duty too.

As for Kennedy's death, I echo Brian's comments in part as to not believing the lone gunman theory, except that I don't limit the possible scope of perpe-traitors (gallows humor here) as Brian does.

For better or worse, I suppose I subscribe to two axioms when it comes to history: 1)so much of history is also UNwritten, and 2) the Truth Lies Somewhere in Between. This is especially true to closer in time we are to the history. I look at as much as I can, legitimate or not, and make up my own mind. I try to use common sense. This takes alot of time and thought, but since I retired in 1994, I've had some time (never enough, though).

I'm sure this sounds strange and quirky, but here is how I originally first got into looking at this historical period, beyond the official take. When Jackie Kennedy married Onassis, it struck me as just simply incomprehensible, more than remarkably odd. Why on earth would she have done that? The usual explanations batted around and what is drawn from her biographies (she sought a father figure, she just wanted to get *away*, shelter her children, she never fit in totally as a Kennedy, etc.), nothing was satisfactorily ENOUGH to me in the common sense dept. Her own possible paranoia is the only other reason I'd believe, but it seemed to me there had to be something else. Why did she pick HIM and uproot herself so totally, particularly in light of the immense American public goodwill towards her and her desire to see the pallet painted Camelot? Well, I've come to suspect that the trauma, the danger, the magnitude of what happened in 1963 had to be at least sufficient enough for her to seek out someone powerful enough to really protect her, from what I don't at all pretend to know, but I think it was *something*. And then, she came back only when we as a nation began to question the unquestionable Intel community (Church ctte, etc.).

Coincidence? May well have been. But that's what makes history SO fascinating, doesn't it?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Barbara on 2001-09-28 13:18 ]</font>







Post#772 at 09-28-2001 03:22 PM by Barbara [at 1931 Silent from Pleasantville joined Aug 2001 #posts 2,352]
---
09-28-2001, 03:22 PM #772
Join Date
Aug 2001
Location
1931 Silent from Pleasantville
Posts
2,352

Yes, Jenny, I read some of those on Amazon the other night. It's interesting to see the interest stirred and the former readers come on to post about it post-911.







Post#773 at 09-28-2001 03:25 PM by JustinLong [at 32 Xer/Nomad from Chesapeake, VA joined Sep 2001 #posts 59]
---
09-28-2001, 03:25 PM #773
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
32 Xer/Nomad from Chesapeake, VA
Posts
59

Brian Rush said
It's a minority -- a rather large one, not a small one, I think closer to 30% than the 14% that someone posted earlier, but still a minority
As someone who is very much involved in statistics, I would like to amplify on this point.

If the RR is part of the Evangelical movement, then it must be < 14%. The USA is, as follows: 27.3% Independents, 23.4% Protestants, 21.2% Roman Catholic, 3.6% Marginal, 2.1% Orthodox, 0.9% Anglican, and 9.5% doubly affiliated. It is 14.7% Evangelical (of the mainline Evangelical sense that crosses Protestant, Anglican and Independent churches) and 26.2% Pentecostal/charismatic. (These statistics from the World Christian Encyclopedia, 2nd edition, of which I am an associate editor).

On the other hand if you are referring to "evangelicals" (with a little "e"), this number *is* closer to 34% in 1976 and has grown since then (I don't have the latest number to hand, but it would likely be available on barna.org). HOWEVER this number includes both Protestants and Roman Catholics who claim to have a born-again experience. Therefore, if the RR is part of THIS bloc, then it is cross-traditional (e.g. including both Protestants and Catholics as well as others).

Evangelicals of the limited variety totalled about 40 million people in AD 2000, and are projected to number about 47 million by 2025, at the end of the next Crisis.







Post#774 at 09-28-2001 03:27 PM by JustinLong [at 32 Xer/Nomad from Chesapeake, VA joined Sep 2001 #posts 59]
---
09-28-2001, 03:27 PM #774
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
32 Xer/Nomad from Chesapeake, VA
Posts
59

Hmph. My bad. I typed unclearly

Crisis = started somewhere between 1900 and 1933: After independence, massive revolt by clerics and others struggling over identity of Afghanistan

High = started somewhere between 1933 and 1973: during this period there was a single Ruler, widening freedoms, establishment of new constitution

Awakening started around 1978, during the Soviet invasion (poor Sovs, they I think were in an unravelling at the time, and in an unravelling vs Awakening, Awakening wins)

Now = Unravelling -- either at beginning or very nearly the end

Crisis = about 20 years from now ?







Post#775 at 09-28-2001 03:34 PM by JustinLong [at 32 Xer/Nomad from Chesapeake, VA joined Sep 2001 #posts 59]
---
09-28-2001, 03:34 PM #775
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
32 Xer/Nomad from Chesapeake, VA
Posts
59

One thing about Afghanistan: I think somewhere in S&H T4T it mentions that the cycles are less clear in less modern societies. Of which Afghanistan certainly is one. Also the cycle thing may matter less since the activities that we're talking about are more the actions of a smallish group of terrorists, not the overall state. They just happen to be hiding out in Afghanistan. They could just as easily have been hiding in Algeria (which has a large number of OBL operatives), or Indonesia, or Sudan, or Somalia...
-----------------------------------------