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 32







Post#776 at 09-28-2001 04:02 PM by DOC 62 [at Western Kentucky joined Sep 2001 #posts 85]
---
09-28-2001, 04:02 PM #776
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Western Kentucky
Posts
85

Mr. Rush and others interested in the RR discussion see my response on the New International Order thread.







Post#777 at 09-28-2001 04:27 PM by Mr. Reed [at Intersection of History joined Jun 2001 #posts 4,376]
---
09-28-2001, 04:27 PM #777
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Intersection of History
Posts
4,376

On 2001-09-28 13:13, Jenny Genser wrote:
Also see below.

Amazon.com Sales Rank: 13

(for Fourth Turning).

Looks like the book is selling like hotcakes.
Wow, S&H must just be smiling at this moment. Do you think that this calls for a third edition?
"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#778 at 09-28-2001 05:50 PM by Lis '54 [at Texas joined Jul 2001 #posts 127]
---
09-28-2001, 05:50 PM #778
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Texas
Posts
127

It's up to No. 12 now.







Post#779 at 09-28-2001 06:29 PM by Craig '84 [at East Brunswick, NJ joined Aug 2001 #posts 128]
---
09-28-2001, 06:29 PM #779
Join Date
Aug 2001
Location
East Brunswick, NJ
Posts
128

On 2001-09-23 23:31, smcd wrote:
Actually Barbara, if Straus and Howe are right and this is the fourth turning going against the grain is not wise. I believe that the reaction to the peace protests will tell for sure whether this is the fourth turning. If the Peace Protests do for the left what Jerry Falwell's comments did for the religious right. By this I mean marginalize it, then I will be convinced this is the fourth turning.
Going against the grain...that's always wise. It's the right thing to do. 3T or 4T, it doesn't matter. That is, of course, assuming that the grain is what "society", or the people who hold up all the rules in America, want you to do. That grain is something we should be going against in all turnings, as long as that grain is what it is now.

Barbara, your grandson sounds just like my reaction. He sounds just like the typical reaction of kids my age, but more basically the typical view. The way he views "society" and its patriotic force sounds just like almost everyone my age. Of course, I have a somewhat different view of this than everyone else in my school because I've read T4T. Your son would have yet another different view, because he's heard of T4T but thinks it's a conspiracy theory. I guess he hasn't really been scared by it the way I am, but unlike most people born in 1984, he knows the book exists. Yes, right now high school and college students are being consistently unpatriotic and very unlike the "Millennial" pattern in S&H. Most of us still oppose the war and we seem to be in an awakening rather than a crisis mindset in every way. This is probably to be expected because even before 9-11 we were acting more like Prophets than like Heroes, of course aren't very Prophetic at all, but in some ways we like the ways of the Awakening, and the Unravelling culture of Gen X. I sometimes wonder if Generation Y is a fifth archetype altogether that hasn't come around in previous cycles. I only hope it keeps up like this. But for a 4T to come...then by definition we're going to change around and start trusting the government. All the desertion I'd feel then.
-Craig







Post#780 at 09-28-2001 06:47 PM by Craig '84 [at East Brunswick, NJ joined Aug 2001 #posts 128]
---
09-28-2001, 06:47 PM #780
Join Date
Aug 2001
Location
East Brunswick, NJ
Posts
128

There are people who do what society wants them to do, and people who do what they want to do. You know, Susan, I've ALWAYS grown up among society wanting to snip off teenagers' buds and cut off their branches. It isn't going to halt a thing for me because I've grown up like that from the start. One of the things that's just the same before 9-11 as after 9-11 is that adults wanted us to fit into the mold they want to see our our generation. Richt wrote:

I have posited (on the old forum) that of a given generation, we can split it into direction-shapers, those who follow that direction, and those who ignore or rebel against it. To illustrate, let's use a split of three thirds. Craig would be in the third third. While important to him, and while remaining true to himself, it really doesn't prevent the course of history from going the direction set by the first third. Craig is reacting, not setting direction, and realizes this, which is why he regrets the inevitability of a new 4T society.
I am worried because if this is the 4T, the generational direction will become something I have to react against. I guess I could say that I've been a follower in the trends of my generation, second group. If 9-11 was the catalyst, then I'm going to fall into the third group in this turning, this time not having company. Society didn't like Generation Y before, now the difference is not in what society wants to do, but that I'll be deserted by my own peer group after being used to having everyone else think like me for these years. If this is 4T I'll be a forgotten outcast, a loner on the side, of the very generation that has given me my only comfort all these years. -Craig







Post#781 at 09-28-2001 06:50 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
09-28-2001, 06:50 PM #781
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Craig, there's something to bear in mind about Strauss and Howe's views regarding young Heroes. That is: like all Boomers, they are too young to have known young GIs. Even the oldest of us first knew your saecular predecessors during the High. When the oldest Boomers were 10 years old, the year was 1953, and GIs ranged in age from 29 to 52.


What that means is that they have no firsthand experience of what young Heroes are like. My own research suggests that GIs were not quite like the picture of dutiful, obedient kids that the authors have drawn. Collegial, yes. Organized, yes. Civic-minded, yes. But opinionated, too, and not inclined to follow orders without question.


We admire, from our MilSaec perspective, the GI workers who invented the sit-down strike and paralyzed the auto industry in the 1930s, beginning a process that totally transformed the American workplace. But at the time, they were far from universally admired; conservative Missionaries viewed this challenge to the sanctity of private property with horror. We admire that courage and patriotism of GIs who fought in World War II. But until Pearl Harbor, it was GI resistance to the war that kept us out of it. Only when events brought them to the conclusion that, yes, we had to go to war -- only when the war received the Hero generation's approval -- could the war be fought.


It has always struck this Boomer, who butted heads with GIs often enough in the Awakening, as most unlikely that they would have been docile and obedient in their youth, and then developed iron wills in midlife. Much more likely, in my estimation, that their wills were just as ferrous when they were young -- and I believe history bears this out.


Your peers questioning the war is not just Prophet-like. It is also Hero-like. It is your job to question whether a proposed action is compatible with the civic renewal that must take place. It is also your job to raise the questions this attack poses about America's role in the world and how best to meet the world's needs. Fighting the war on terrorism, defending the country -- sure, that's your generation's job but it's only part of the job. Much more important is pushing us towards a lasting peace, towards the civic changes that must be made, towards a global order that is sustainable and fair to all. And if that requires putting your collective feet down and stopping the war effort until the changes are on track, then that's your job, too.


The Hero is a dominant archetype. Other generations forget that at their peril.







Post#782 at 09-28-2001 07:03 PM by Neisha '67 [at joined Jul 2001 #posts 2,227]
---
09-28-2001, 07:03 PM #782
Join Date
Jul 2001
Posts
2,227

There's so many pages here, and I haven't been able to catch up on all of them, so forgive the interruption and also forgive me if I am repeating someone else's post. Has anyone mentioned this, in Generations S&H predicted the catalyst in *2003*. In TFT they changed the prediction to *2005*. Why the change and what if they were closer the first time around? If they were right the first time and 911 *was* the catalyst, this cycle may not be as anamolous as we fear.







Post#783 at 09-28-2001 09:18 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
09-28-2001, 09:18 PM #783
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

On 2001-09-24 15:09, Susan Brombacher wrote:
A few thoughts.

One indication we are in 4T is the sudden disappearance of the boomer-bashing that used to run rampant on this site. Maybe Xers and Boomers finally figured out they must use each other's strengths in this crisis instead of sniping on each other's weaknesses. Likewise, Boomers of both red and blue zone leanings realize they must do the same.

I noticed something strange about Crises (and Highs), supposedly the two culturally blandest turnings. While music and forms of mass entertainment homogenize and lose their spice, visual art does the opposite. In fact, it flourishes, especially during Highs. The Renaissance was a High, not an Awakening as many believe, and produced many of today's recognized great artists, sculptors, and architects. DaVinci, of course, was also a man of science (a true "renaissance man"), who also designed precision machines, including an airplane, and texts on human anatomy that are still used by medical students.

The Great Power crisis produced the likes of "Persistence of Memory" by Salvador Dali, "Guernica" by Picasso (probably his best known painting), surrealist/dadaist works by Miro, and Paul Klee. During the American High, abstract expressionism exploded with works by GIs Jackson Pollack, Willem DeKooning, Francis Bacon (the guy who painted disturbing paintings of sides of beef), and Mark Rothko. None of these painters was a feel-good Norman Rockwell; all produced works that were disturbing rather than pretty, abstract and nonrepresentational rather than realistic, and highly individualistic. All these High-era painters were GIs (the Crisis era painters were mainly Lost), presumably those, like Craig, who did not feel they fit into the generational norm that was expected of them. They expressed their frustration with society through their works.

Perhaps the reason why visual art (including architecture) flourish during Crises and Highs is that these are both hands-on, "building"-type activities that Heroes are naturally so good at.

In contrast, music and filmed entertainment flourish during Awakenings and Unravellings, but fine visual arts are less distinguished and find a much smaller audience.

Any thoughts?
Your analysis sounds like my book Susan!

Actually, using the Renaissance as an example may not be right, since this was before there was an America. I of course use astrological cycles to chart periods of artistic highs, and by that measure it is awakenings and unravellings that are the best (at least in the American period, when Uranus and Neptune are in the later signs of the zodiac-- as they also were in the high Renaissance "high" period). American highs are distinguished by their lack of cultural expression, whereas the highs of other nations and civilizations are not. We can hope that this may change though.

I don't consider the abstract expressionists to be a very high achievement. It is true that there were some classics like Guernica and Persistence of Memory painted during the 1930s; food for thought. However, the real breakthrough was the 1890 to 1919 period when the bases for all modern art styles was laid.

"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#784 at 09-28-2001 10:19 PM by Mr. Reed [at Intersection of History joined Jun 2001 #posts 4,376]
---
09-28-2001, 10:19 PM #784
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Intersection of History
Posts
4,376

On 2001-09-24 15:09, Susan Brombacher wrote:
A few thoughts.

One indication we are in 4T is the sudden disappearance of the boomer-bashing that used to run rampant on this site. (snip)
What!??? NOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :wink:
"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#785 at 09-28-2001 10:29 PM by Mr. Reed [at Intersection of History joined Jun 2001 #posts 4,376]
---
09-28-2001, 10:29 PM #785
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Intersection of History
Posts
4,376

On 2001-09-28 16:50, Brian Rush wrote:
Craig, there's something to bear in mind about Strauss and Howe's views regarding young Heroes. That is: like all Boomers, they are too young to have known young GIs. Even the oldest of us first knew your saecular predecessors during the High. When the oldest Boomers were 10 years old, the year was 1953, and GIs ranged in age from 29 to 52.


What that means is that they have no firsthand experience of what young Heroes are like. My own research suggests that GIs were not quite like the picture of dutiful, obedient kids that the authors have drawn. Collegial, yes. Organized, yes. Civic-minded, yes. But opinionated, too, and not inclined to follow orders without question.


We admire, from our MilSaec perspective, the GI workers who invented the sit-down strike and paralyzed the auto industry in the 1930s, beginning a process that totally transformed the American workplace. But at the time, they were far from universally admired; conservative Missionaries viewed this challenge to the sanctity of private property with horror. We admire that courage and patriotism of GIs who fought in World War II. But until Pearl Harbor, it was GI resistance to the war that kept us out of it. Only when events brought them to the conclusion that, yes, we had to go to war -- only when the war received the Hero generation's approval -- could the war be fought.


It has always struck this Boomer, who butted heads with GIs often enough in the Awakening, as most unlikely that they would have been docile and obedient in their youth, and then developed iron wills in midlife. Much more likely, in my estimation, that their wills were just as ferrous when they were young -- and I believe history bears this out.


Your peers questioning the war is not just Prophet-like. It is also Hero-like. It is your job to question whether a proposed action is compatible with the civic renewal that must take place. It is also your job to raise the questions this attack poses about America's role in the world and how best to meet the world's needs. Fighting the war on terrorism, defending the country -- sure, that's your generation's job but it's only part of the job. Much more important is pushing us towards a lasting peace, towards the civic changes that must be made, towards a global order that is sustainable and fair to all. And if that requires putting your collective feet down and stopping the war effort until the changes are on track, then that's your job, too.


The Hero is a dominant archetype. Other generations forget that at their peril.
Yeah. One thing, though, is how they are PERCEIVED by society. A few Millies went around smashing buildings and starting fires in the WTO Seattle riots. The Boomers probably said, "Awwww look at those cute little kids. Reminds me of my childhood." When Xers looked at this, they said, "Ha Ha Ha! Now the Boomers will know what it feels like to be on the wrong side of the generation gap!"
"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#786 at 09-28-2001 10:58 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
09-28-2001, 10:58 PM #786
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

On 2001-09-28 13:09, Brian Rush wrote:
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.
Granted. However, it is relevant that the news media tend to portray the RR as basically anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. In very broad, that's true, but there is a significant subgroup that opposes both, the 'seemless web' group.

In terms of Biblical literalism, the Bible does not forbid the death penalty, but the trend of the New Testament seems to me to bring it into some question.

In terms of pragmatism, the steady stream of idiotic and frightening screw-ups in the death penalty cases of last several years are just as visible to the RR as the rest of the country, and the RR is no more inclined than anyone else to enjoy the idea of executing the innocent.

As for abortion, I suspect you are right about the country refusing to recriminalize it. I also suspect that if it was currently illegal, the electorate would not vote to legalize it.

My take on the 'collective' abortion view of the United States is something like this:

"Abortion should remain legal, and women should have the right to choose, and should always choose not the have the abortion, and will this issue please go away? It hurts to think about it."

That's the cynical side of me talking at the last part, but I do think that the collective mind is rather divided on the matter. I think it's partly a sense of frustration, with the RR which won't (and for various reasons probably can't) yield an inch on this issue, and the equally driven pro-abortion zealots who refuse to accept that a baby ten minutes before birth is not a 'tissue mass'.


In terms


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#787 at 09-28-2001 11:06 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
09-28-2001, 11:06 PM #787
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Angeli wrote:

(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.)

Hmmm...a very long time indeed. Could it be that those two themes actually complement each other in some subtle ways?







Post#788 at 09-28-2001 11:26 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
09-28-2001, 11:26 PM #788
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

On 2001-09-28 00:08, Brian Rush wrote:
HopefulCynic:


Now, we may be using different definitions of the word fascist, and if so, fine.

Fascism is a political philosophy whose core value is national greatness and power. It involves radical revolutionary goals and a rewiring of society from top to bottom only at the extreme. The values of 1950s America included strong elements that were in common with those of Fascist Italy: extreme nationalism, focus on the Enemy, and contempt for freedom. America was as fascist then as the Constitution permits; thankfully, that does provide some limitation.


I would prefer to move forward to the next High, not backward to the last one.
You're right, we were using different definitions. To me, fascist is almost indelibly linked with the right-wing dictatorships of the thirties and forties, and I have to force myself not to use that definition by reflex.

I would submit that the 'Enemy' did exist in the Fifties. I agree that the McCarthy witch hunt was a perversion of America. That doesn't alter the fact that the Soviet Union _was_ a very real threat.

I grant that some of what was feared seems to me from a hindsight standpoint to verge on paranoia, but since the fall of the USSR, it's become clear that a lot of what the anti-communists were saying was dead true.

Contempt for freedom? I wasn't there, so I can't speak from first hand experience, but even at it's worst I don't know that 1T America ever approached true contempt for freedom. The exception being the very strict set of rules for sex roles. I don't excuse those, I share your disdain for many of them (though perhaps not all).

But that also runs deeper than the Fifties. It's often forgotten that the actress Heady Lamarr (I think I spelled that right) was a technical genius. She had patents to her name, and today could have been wealthy from it, instead of acting. In her day, _before_ the Fifties, women, especially beautiful women, Didn't Do That Sort Of Thing.

For a fictional example that always catches my attention, see the movie War of the Worlds. In it, the female lead was supposedly a college-trained and skilled expert in something relevant to the invasion situation (I forget what, it doesn't matter except that it was something serious and useful.), and how did she contribute? She made coffee.








Post#789 at 09-29-2001 12:26 AM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
09-29-2001, 12:26 AM #789
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Brian Rush wrote:


In fairness, there _are_ some members of the RR, especially its evangelical component, who do regard all non evengelical churches with deep suspicion. They are a small minority today.


I just realized something. You speak of "the religious right, especially its evangelical component," implying that the religious right is broader than the evangelicals.


I speak of the evangelical churches, and their religious right subgroup, implying that the evangelical churches are broader in membership than the political religious right.


We are using different definitions of "religious right." To me, "non-evangelical religious right" is oxymoronic. The religious right is a political expression of the evangelical religious subculture. It is not adhered to even by all evangelicals, some of whom are nonpolitical, or keep their faith pure of politics. It is not adhered to by anyone outside that subculture, not even those who may agree on a point or two. A Catholic may be pro-life on abortion, but he or she is not part of the religious right as I am using the term -- unless he or she is a very odd Catholic indeed.


That may be the whole source of our disagreement.


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.

The religious right, by my definition, IS a fringe group and a dying minority. Apparently I don't altogether understand what you mean by the term, so by that definition you may be right.
OK.

I think I said something to that effect earlier in our discussion, but I didn't think then that you had heard me quite right.

Yes, I do use a defintion of RR that includes but is not limited to the evangelicals. Let me see if I can express it clearly in a short form.

Perhaps I should borrow another poster's words, and call the group I am referring to the 'religious conservatives', or RC. They partake of several denominations, and though they are majority Christian believers, there are Jews and Islamics who can be counted among them as well. There are many fundamentalists among them, but they don't make up 100% of the membership.

The RC share some beliefs in common, even across the range of very real differences.
I already mentioned the two that I think the RC AS A WHOLE (as opposed to some factions or individuals or other factions within it) would probably legislate if they could, the ban on most abortion and the restriction of the legal definition of marriage. They might very well make divorce somewhat harder to get, but I don't think they would ban it outright as a group.

They certainly have other common beliefs, that don't lend themselves to being legislated very well. I'm trying to boil down a _very_ wide variety of specific opinions into a general pattern in a few paragraphs, but it runs something like this:

The RC maintain that the world is not a purely mechanistic, material place, and that life, and specifically human life, are not accidental. They further maintain that morality is an absolute by nature.

Now, they _don't_ all agree on exactly what that absolute morality consists of. They do maintain that God (the God of Abraham, in almost all cases) is a literal Being, actually Existing, not just a metaphorical concept. Therefore, it follows from that point of faith that God has definite opinions (which would by definition be right).

That statement alone can sound terrifying, so let me qualify it a little. The RC believe that morality is absolute in something like the same sense that 2+2=4 is absolute. The rules exist, but we don't even agree with each other always on what they are. It's quite possible, I concede, and so do many other RC members, that we could be wrong about our beliefs about the nature of the rules. What we pretty uniformly deny is the contention that there are no rules at all.

I could fill fifty pages with qualifications, exceptions, and debates about the details of these matters among the RC, and still not cover everything. So instead, I'm going to try to hit a few high spots.

The RC maintain that human life is inherently valuable, not in relation to society or the ecosystem or anything else, but in an of itself.

The RC maintain, broadly, that there are some value systems that simply won't work in practice, and that the societies that adopt them will either turn away again, or fall. That doesn't _necessarily_ mean that God's wrath will fall on them, though some believe that. It can simply mean a belief that a society that tries to adopt certain practices self-destructs.

The RC tend to be traditionalists, for both good and bad. The good is that many of the old-fashioned rules that seem restrictive often turn out to have solid foundations under them. In this, the RC shares some ground with 'true' conservatives of the Goldwater/Burke camp.

The bad is that the RC sometimes sides with tradition out of reflex, even when the evidence piles up that the tradition is bad, useless, or just plain irrelevant. Since the clergy spend more time than most pondering religious matters, they often tend to display both the good and bad traits of this traditionalism more clearly than the general run of the RC.

The RC also denies, in almost all cases, that morality is defined by the popular will.
That is _not_ the same thing as being opposed to democracy. It is more like a recognition that democracy _can_ mean: two wolves and a rabbit voting on dinner.

The RC would deny, for example, that a 90% approval rating for abortion has any bearing on its morality. It would certainly support its legality, but from the RC point of view, if one person in the world says that murder/rape/genocide is wrong, and _everyone_ else says that it's right, then that one person is right and everyone else is wrong.

(I deliberately chose a ridiculously simplistic example, since I was making a general point about the RC beliefs.)

Furthermore, the RC generally maintain that there is absolute reality. Thus, some statements about the nature of the world can be correct and some opinions just wrong. The RC doesn't deny the possibility of our being wrong, only the possibility of everyone being right.

(In this, though many don't realize it, the RC and the scientific establishment are on the same side against a chunk of the post-modernist establishment.)

I realize that all this sounds either vague or so general as to be non-defining, so let me try to show how it applies.

The RC ideally believes that since humans are created in the image of God (at least spiritually, and some say physically, and yes, this applies whether creationism or evolution is assumed), it follows that ideally, one should always regard a fellow human as a subject, not an object.

It is here that many of the sexual rules that so frustrate others where the RC is concerned have their root. The Catholics take this further than the Protestants, but both tend to be irritated by the concept that sex should be looked as in _isolation_ from the relationships around it.

For example, one of the things we kept hearing about over recent years was that adultery was a purely private matter between the people involved. To a point, yes, but the RC would point out that there are steady ripples.

Ripple One: Any children involved risk having their lives torn apart by events beyond their control.

Ripple Two: If the fact of the adultery gets out, people around them affected just by knowing it. Friends are forced to take sides, jobs and coworkers are at least inconvenienced at times, and it makes it that much harder to hold the idea of marriage as important seriously, every time someone is seen breaking it.

I use adultery as an example. Their opponents often try to tar the RC as being perennial busy-bodies. The RC maintain that past a certain point, yes, it is public business, because everyone is affected.

Some are going to complain that this makes the RC hypocrites, because they are just as bad if not worse about adultery, lying, and all the rest.

Well, yes. The fact that a man (or woman) believes adultery is wrong, and then commits it, doesn't mean that his/her belief is wrong or that it isn't sincere, it just means that as humans, we're rotten at living up to our own ideals, even when we can all agree on what they are (Which isn't often, the reason I am being so general is that when you get into the details it's hard to find consensus. That's true of the RC's opposition, too.)

Let me pick another example. The RC tend to be big worryers about the slippery slope. They also tend to worry over the long haul.

An example of their fear is Professor Death.
That's a nickname for Princeton Professor Peter Singer. A sample of his thinking can be found at:

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2001/...ger/index.html

Now, here, in places, he sounds very reasonable, but take a closer look: he maintains that the abortiona age limit should be 28 days AFTER birth. He later sort of backtracks, but the fact that he suggested it at all alarms the RC. He suggests that doctors should be allowed to override parents about keeping a baby alive, based on a rather vague 'happiness' quotient.

I fully realize that he is a freakish exception, and that his ideas are not likely to be generally accepted any time soon.

The alarm is based on their belief that there isn't any good dividing line. Either human life is unique and special, or it's not, and once you cross that unique and special line, it's hard to define a universal reason _not_ to behave like the Khymer Rouge, or the Nazi Party. You can make lots of purely pragmatic reasons not to, and such purely pragmatic reasons can be nullified easily, since you made them up yourself in the first place.

This is the sort of worry that unites the evangelical Christian right, the Catholic clergy, much of the Islamic faith, and so some degree many factions of Judaism as well.

That does not mean that the various factions within the RC necessarily like or trust each other. There _are_ evangelicals who think that the Catholic Church is a vast deception led by a deliberately evil Pope. There _are_ Catholics who are anti-Semitic. There _are_ Islamics contemptuous of all infidels.

But these are not the only members of the RC, or even it's defining members. If they were, the whole thing would have fallen apart many years ago. Instead, collectively, they have provided the voting power and the will to block the movement of the groups they distrust (sometimes with reason, sometimes not, IMHO).

Do the evangelicals contribute something valuable to the RC? Yes. Passion, fire, and determination, as well as a sometimes useful, sometimes disruptive Biblical literalism.

Do the evangelicals weaken the RC? Yes, by a bone-deep intolerance in some cases, by (too often) a tendency toward ignorance about those who disagree with them, and by a refusal to face up to scientific and technical developments that the often hate.

I haven't done a very good job of this, in my own opinion. I've mentioned a lot of examples, but done a rotten job of linking them together coherently, and I think I probably left too much out. My own religious views inevitably affect my analysis of the RC, but I can't help that.

I may try again, after I have some time to think about this. I'm sure I've managed to offend some people, so have it!








Post#790 at 09-29-2001 12:40 AM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
09-29-2001, 12:40 AM #790
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Let me add something, too.

Here are some things that the RC, as a whole, don't immediately agree about:

The absolute literal nature of the Bible.

Whether Christianity/Judaism/Islam is the "only" True Faith.

Whether the Universe came into being in a literal six days, by a process of God-guided evolution, or other. About the only thing the whole RC uniformly rejects is the 'complete accident' theory.

The status of homosexuals (there is actually a range of opinions on this). There are even those in the RC who don't oppose the ideal of official homosexual marriage, but they are very much a minority.

The nature of the end of the world.

The status of the state as a tool for enforcing morality. All law is essentially legislated morality, in RC view, but that does not in itself imply that all morality can or should be legislated.



Brian Rush wrote:

Homosexual acts, and heterosexual ones outside marriage, would carry civil and criminal penalties. Pornography, with a very wide-ranging definition, would be outlawed. Penalties would be imposed on non-Christian religions to the extent this is possible within the restrictions of the First Amendment. (It might be more possible than many suppose. A sympathetic Supreme Court might allow redefining some religions as "cults" that lie outside the definition of "religion" as that term is used in the Constitution. While that would almost certainly not work with Judaism, and perhaps not with other so-called "great" religions such as Buddhism or Islam, it would be much more likely to impact the various Satanist, Neopagan, and New Age religions.)
There is more truth to this than I initially implied, _IF_ the evangelicals came to power purely on their own. Even there, the _degree_ of these would depend on which evangelicals came to power, and under what circumstances.

As I said, I don't agree with the evangelicals myself on everything. I do note that like the rest of the U.S. and the world, they too have been changed and are changing under the force of the Boom Awakening, for the better AND for the worse.

Will some of the desires of the evangelicals be incorporated into the 4T settlement? I'm betting yes, through various routes we can't even see now. All of them? Of course not.

Are the evangelicals a dying breed? Yes and no. Yes, in their absolutely pure form, they are likely to be absorbed back into the religious mainstream as that in turn becomes a bit more conservative under 4T pressure. No, because their basic ideas will remain under other forms, as they have for centuries.

Will the evangelicals drive their opponents off the field? Not a chance, unless God intervenes on their side. Like the evangelicals themselves, their opponents are sincere and dedicated, and they, too, have heritages both good and bad going back centuries.








Post#791 at 09-29-2001 01:00 AM by Opusaug [at Ft. Myers, Florida joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
09-29-2001, 01:00 AM #791
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts
7

On 2001-09-28 22:26, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
I haven't done a very good job of this, in my own opinion. I've mentioned a lot of examples, but done a rotten job of linking them together coherently, and I think I probably left too much out.
I agree, your examples leave something to be desired. But I think your explanation came closest to my own thinking on the matter.

Incidentally, I believe somewhere within this rather large collection of RC's, lies the very small contingent of RR's Mr. Rush speaks of. Yes, IMHO, they are a very small group, when compared with the RCs as a whole. Personally, I'd like to see them fade away, as they give the rest of us in the RC community (according to HopefulCynic's definition) a very bad name. But we DO tend to agree more often than not, and many RC's take their cue from the RRs, even when they aren't RR themselves.
Christopher O'Conor
13er, '68 cohort







Post#792 at 09-29-2001 01:21 AM by Tom Mazanec [at NE Ohio 1958 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,511]
---
09-29-2001, 01:21 AM #792
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
NE Ohio 1958
Posts
1,511

Could this be what happens?
Sep '01 WTC and Pentagon attacks.
Oct '01 Bush launches bombing and commando raids in Afganistan.
Nov '01 al-Quaida (sp?) uses nerve gas to kill several thousand spectators at a couple major sport events.
Dec '01 Bush begins limited invasion of Afganistan.
Jan '02 Attempt to unleash smallpox in US unsuccessful, but bring about stringent quarantine measures to halt spread.
Feb '02 Bush orders full invasion of Afganistan.
Mar '02 Islamic revolution in Pakistan gives Jihad terrorists access to nuclear weapons.
Apr '02 Bush requests draft to raise forces to invade Pakistan. Congress agrees.
May '02 Islamic revolution in Saudi Arabia leads to oil cutoff, DJIA down 2000 points.
Bush asks increase in draft to secure "our" oil imports...
I am just illustrating S&H's "unyielding responses and further emergencies", probably in an unrealistic degree of speed and scale. Yet, we would still not know even about step 2 in this scenario. It is only barely past the first half month...that is why I keep saying "probably" or "most likely" this is the catalyst. Let's be a little patient about being definite.
However, I still would like to see a review of where he've been and where we're going in the ten areas singled out by the authors on Oct 11, if it's not too much trouble :smile:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tom Mazanec on 2001-09-28 23:22 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tom Mazanec on 2001-09-29 00:39 ]</font>







Post#793 at 09-29-2001 10:03 AM by Opusaug [at Ft. Myers, Florida joined Sep 2001 #posts 7]
---
09-29-2001, 10:03 AM #793
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Ft. Myers, Florida
Posts
7

On 2001-09-28 23:21, Tom Mazanec wrote:
Could this be what happens?
....(snip)....
I am just illustrating S&H's "unyielding responses and further emergencies", probably in an unrealistic degree of speed and scale. Yet, we would still not know even about step 2 in this scenario. It is only barely past the first half month...that is why I keep saying "probably" or "most likely" this is the catalyst. Let's be a little patient about being definite.
"Could" is the correct word, and I agree it's faster than actual events may take. But I respectfully disagree with your saying the scale of events is unrealistic. Over the course of twenty years, actual events will probably be close to or exceed the scale of your example, though perhaps not the details.
Christopher O'Conor
13er, '68 cohort







Post#794 at 09-29-2001 11:27 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
09-29-2001, 11:27 AM #794
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

HopefulCynic, all I will say here is that your religious conservatives are indeed a much, much larger group -- and a much less offensive one generally -- than the evangelical subculture to which I was referring by the term "religious right." Indeed, using my own terminology, the group you are referring to are really conservative, not fundamentalist.


But I would question your inclusion of what I am calling the religious right within the umbrella of what you are calling religious conservatives. It seems to me there is more disagreement than agreement between yourself and the religious right, and the disagreements are about fundamentals while the agreements are about points where you and I also tend to agree.


It might be quite interesting to have a thread devoted to religion and politics, where the substantial ideas you referenced can be discussed, but this thread is not the proper place. I will create a religion and politics thread on the Culture and Values forum, and we can take it there; however I won't be able to actually respond to your post here in detail until this afternoon, as I have a class to go to.







Post#795 at 09-29-2001 12:35 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
09-29-2001, 12:35 PM #795
Guest

On 2001-09-28 17:03, Neisha '67 wrote:
There's so many pages here, and I haven't been able to catch up on all of them, so forgive the interruption and also forgive me if I am repeating someone else's post. Has anyone mentioned this, in Generations S&H predicted the catalyst in *2003*. In TFT they changed the prediction to *2005*. Why the change and what if they were closer the first time around? If they were right the first time and 911 *was* the catalyst, this cycle may not be as anamolous as we fear.
Neisha, in "Generations", S&H dated the start of the 3T as 1981. In "Fourth Turning', they moved it back to 1984. I think that accounts for why they moved back the projected date of 4T.

Now, why they moved back the date of 3T is a good question. About a year ago, I asked them that and there was some discussion on the now-archived "generational boundaries" thread. However, I didn't get an answer that I found to be clear or specific. Instead, lots of other posters have chimed in with their opinions. According to posters, 3T began anywhere between 1979 and 1986.







Post#796 at 09-29-2001 12:37 PM by Kevin1952 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 39]
---
09-29-2001, 12:37 PM #796
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
39

Some thoughts: In 1994, the "Republican Revolution" in the House was a short-lived phenomenon due to the American public's oxymoronic nature. While the House retains its (slim) majority status, the fervor which swept so many young conservatives into power has waned. Americans don't want new taxes, but they don't want their programs cut either (I suspect there are more "lockboxes" than Social Security). The above is not a new insight, but it bears repeating in the context of this message. (And, despite 911, I've yet to see an indication that Americans are making fundamental changes in this tax/program position, nor any change in the Administration's position either.)

Having had to deal with this phenomenon, frustrated conservatives, I believe, wanted to avoid any populist movements and/or candidates in their 2000 drive for the White House. Hence, when John McCain's candidacy began to spark interest in middle America, Bush's handlers reached into their vast resources and got out the vote during the primaries and downplayed McCain's conservative credentials. The portrayal of McCain as a questionable conservative may have had little basis in fact, but it served its purpose.

The enormous amount of money channeled into GW's candidacy early on, despite his short political tenure, indicates, I believe, an interest in creating a <u>managed</u> Administration rather than attempting to set a particular philosophical tone. I imagine that this portrayal is very much in keeping with the attitude of the Silents that comprise much of GW's advisors. The lack of an electoral mandate on GW's part was actually an asset in events prior to 911, since he had no popular base to defend. Almost all he had to do was not screw up.

Recent performance notwithstanding, if this description of GW's rise to power is accurate, can he in the long run ever become a "rallying point" kind of President (let alone a GC -- since many on this forum seem to agree that it's too early for that)? All indications so far point to this being a managed crisis, and not a zealous response.

Thoughts?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin1952 on 2001-09-29 10:40 ]</font>







Post#797 at 09-29-2001 04:34 PM by Barbara [at 1931 Silent from Pleasantville joined Aug 2001 #posts 2,352]
---
09-29-2001, 04:34 PM #797
Join Date
Aug 2001
Location
1931 Silent from Pleasantville
Posts
2,352

On 2001-09-28 17:03, Neisha '67 wrote:
There's so many pages here, and I haven't been able to catch up on all of them, so forgive the interruption and also forgive me if I am repeating someone else's post. Has anyone mentioned this, in Generations S&H predicted the catalyst in *2003*. In TFT they changed the prediction to *2005*. Why the change and what if they were closer the first time around? If they were right the first time and 911 *was* the catalyst, this cycle may not be as anamolous as we fear.
Neisha, that was a great notice on your part. But could it simply mean that between publishing the two books, S&H found reasons to change the dates back? I assumed they corrected their dates in T4T; therefore, I take those as their published prediction possibility.

Of course, living timelines being what they are, they may determine to correct the dates yet again....







Post#798 at 09-29-2001 05:00 PM by Kevin1952 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 39]
---
09-29-2001, 05:00 PM #798
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
39

From the AP:
a recent poll --
"People were about evenly split on whether the U.S. should take quick action on issues like tax cuts, new powers for the FBI and airport security, or whether they should take more time to fully debate the issues. (Newsweek)"

3T reaction?










Post#799 at 09-29-2001 06:03 PM by Barbara [at 1931 Silent from Pleasantville joined Aug 2001 #posts 2,352]
---
09-29-2001, 06:03 PM #799
Join Date
Aug 2001
Location
1931 Silent from Pleasantville
Posts
2,352

Kevin, I've been seeing that similar rough split in CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider's poll number analyses over the past 2 weeks. He first noticed a split developing over the time this war effort would take v. support of the effort. Then, a developing split over the reactive domestic issues, some of which you mention. Of course, one would have to believe that Silent Schneider is interpreting correctly...

But to hilite just one of those issues: what I've gotten from this past week's Schneider soundbites that I've been able to catch, airport security is not following the same domestic issue split response; or maybe the timing's off because it was discussed in Congress. I get the impression people want the maximum action on that one. Federal Air Marshals, El Al-like procedures, Federal control so as not to leave it up again to private security rent-a-cop outsourcing, etc. In fact, I've been struck how the President's recent recommends so closely parallel those of former FAA Inspector General-turned-Whistleblower Mary Sciavo, who's been chanting them now for YEARS.

This will be interesting to watch as to WHEN people actually get back on those planes versus WHEN any/all changes get into actual practice.







Post#800 at 09-29-2001 11:11 PM by JustinLong [at 32 Xer/Nomad from Chesapeake, VA joined Sep 2001 #posts 59]
---
09-29-2001, 11:11 PM #800
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
32 Xer/Nomad from Chesapeake, VA
Posts
59

The S&H points and my own comments:

A desire to describe the problem in maximalist rather than minimalist terms--in ways that would sweep other problems (fiscal, economic, cultural, moral) into this one big problem.

--* NO, NOT YET. All other problems are being ignored for the moment while we deal with this one, not swept into it.

A movement toward grand solutions that would permanently solve the problem rather than solutions that could be interpreted as delay or diversion.

--* NO, NOT YET. Sort of, though. Bush called for the US to go after all terrorists of global reach. i contend, however, that terrorism is not going to be the defining "problem" confronted in T4T. It is a catalyst - we have yet to see the problem.

An impulse toward total reaction (total war, destruction of enemies) as opposed to calibrated action (legalistic enforcement of rules, "justice" for enemies).

--* NO, NOT YET

A distinct shift, in public life, away from individualism (civil liberties) and toward community purpose (survival).

--* MOVING THAT WAY. However, some severe concerns about civil liberties lost in the process.

The end of the petty arguments of the Third Turning-the blue-zone / red-zone "culture wars," rooted in old Second Turning debates--that may begin to feel ridiculous, even dangerous.

--* NO, NOT YET. Most other debates have been ignored for right now.

The increasing irrelevance of the celebrity culture. Will anyone care about Michael Jackson, or Michael Jordan, in the familiar Third Turning way? Recall how, once the last Fourth Turning started, the flagpole sitters came down, less because they themselves felt any great new purpose than because the public just stopped paying attention.

--* YES, FOR RIGHT NOW. We'll see if it lasts 6 months.

A sharp negative turn in America's perception of immigration (and, in time, of potential immigrants' perceptions of America)--and of "globalism" more generally. ... Will we see a move toward nativism in our culture and treatment of foreign-born Americans, and toward a sort of do-it-elsewhere-but-not-here isolationism in foreign policy? What will "Globalism"mean now? Will people begin fearing it, not merely as a possible threat to jobs, but for how it might make fanatics out of people halfway around the world? The nativist right could easily join the anachist (anti-IMF) left on this one.

--* MOVING THIS WAY. Increasing hate crimes and incivility.

A movement by each generation toward a new archetypal role, in keeping with the phase of life it is about to enter. Are Boomers overcoming narcissism? Gen Xers circling the wagons around family? Are Millennials emerging as young heroes. (Keep an eye on media treatment of Millennials. Will the criticism give way? Will the pop culture change? Will youth fare be less gross, less violent?)

--* XERS SEEM TO BE CIRCLING THE WAGONS. I have yet to see the others.

A new willingness to pay a human price to achieve national purpose. Will military plans resemble Kosovo-or Iwo Jima? Will we try to rely on exquisite technologies to reduce the risk of military deaths, or will we rely on human courage to reduce the risk of technological failure?

--* MODERATE. We seem willing to pay a human price, but only a limited one. We are relying on technologies and small contingents of special ops forces.

A shattering of consumer confidence. Is the economy still expected to veer up and avoid a recession, or will we soon see newly dark forecasts about a likely recession-or worse. What will happen to the Dow and Nasdaq?

--* YES, LIMITED. Consumer confidence is dropping and economic experts agree we are in a recession. However, many companies are "standing united" to give a kick start to the economy. This could be viewed as a 4T crisis event (i.e. all the companies in war-time lifestyles).

Something I've commented on before that no one else has responded to is the idea of the Internet as the vast propaganda machine a la the last Crisis...?

-----------------------------------------