Bob Butler says: "I have been dissapointed that no "Regeneracy" has been happening to speak of. The concept of a 'let's hope it goes away' pause before the crisis proper seems right"

Am I the only one to notice that this discussion is beginning to sound like evangelical Christians awaiting the "Rapture"?

Also, everyone seems to see the "Regeneracy" in the way they'd hope it to be.

The left-of-center people seem to think it's going to be another "New Deal", and thus either conclude we are not in 4T yet, or say we are, but make excuses for why things don't seem yet to be headed that way. But always they have faith that THEIR kind of "regeneracy" is coming. Is that the attraction to S & H theory: the idea that the theory indicates that the philosophical shifts America has had in the past 20 years are not permanent, and are destined by the theory to shift leftward?

Of course, it's more complicated than that. For example, if the above paragraph was 100% correct, then we might expect the right-of-center people to be just the opposite: assuming through faith that the next regeneracy would be a "return to conservative values", etc., and would tend to conclude that this is the 4T already (since we have a very popular conservative Republican in the White House, and 9/11 dealt a major blow to the left, etc.). There is SOME of that, but some of the more outspoken conservatives here are ALSO arguing that the regeneracy will be like the New Deal (a leftward shift), except they portray that in a BAD light, and are ALSO saying we aren't there yet.

It's very confusing. I guess my point is that the theory seems to have as many interpretations as there are people who post here. How will we ever know it's right?

The theory may be right, but you'll never really know unless you can somehow look at it objectively.

To do this, consider how the 4T might very well go AGAINST what you WANT it to be (while still fitting the (very broad) outlines of S & H theory.) Get used to thinking about that possibility.

Those who think the 4T will bring the country left should consider scenarios for the opposite. Those who think the 4T will be a victory over "liberalism" should consider scenarios for the opposite.

Then, look at statistics and hard facts (not opinions) without predjudice.

Remember that S & H seem to portray the last 4T as a little of both, or a sort of temporary (one generation long) consensus between different poles during a crisis. Those on the "right" not really altering their faith in lassez faire capitalism, but accepting the New Deal as a compromise to prevent a total loss of our capitalist institutions to communism through an era of great public fear. The GI's never new anything different, and continued the compromise as long as they could. Even Nixon was hardly a "lassez faire" guy, establish price controls, etc.

Those who tend to worship the memory of FDR, remember that he was quite a power-seeking individual. Ever see old movies where ordinary people had his portrait up in their living rooms? Was that for real? Imagine that kind of personality cult here in the US! Trying to pack the courts. Aggressively challenging the Japanese (not that the Nips weren't acting horrifically in China) and getting us into a war the public wanted to stay out of. FOUR TERMS! Those on the right were quite scared of FDR becoming a despot, an idiot who couldn't graduate from Columbia becoming America's Stalin...

Take off your rose-colored glasses. Even if the theory's correct, nobody knows exactly how it'll go. Stop expecting the Rapture.

[quote]
On 2002-02-15 12:48, Susan Brombacher wrote:

You'd never know it! That's very good.

Thank you. Your influence lives on. :smile:

I doubt that MSM could really be Marc Lamb. In fact, the first impression that I got of MSM was when he read a newcomer's note insisting that because of the world problems out there we're in the fourth turning, and he responded that it was a good message and was "glad that not everyone on this board is making weak arguments that we are in a 3T because of silly things going on in the pop culture". I thought that this was a poster who was convinced we were in the fourth turning until I read some more of his notes in which he sounded more skeptical and wasn't willing to decide. MSM's notes all carried an extreme anti-anarchist rhetoric, filled with enraging assertions that the majority of people didn't even take anarchists seriously. His rhetoric was filled with working-class, "real world" crap. The whole thing came off as the most venomously fascist stuff some of us would ever see on this forum. Now, Marc sounds nothing like that. His language is a little different, there's much less intensity than MSM's posts, and his delivery is a little lofty too. I just can't picture that kind of fascist rudeness in Marc Lamb's posts. His politics don't connect to MSM's. So it never occurred to me that MSM might be Marc Lamb, and I still don't think he's Marc Lamb even after the possibility has been suggested. Plus, I don't even imagine Marc having the ability to invent a poster like MSM, or convincingly post the kind of ramblings that MSM does. So I'm sure, 99 to 1, that you're looking in the wrong place for Marc S. Lamb.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jesse Manoogian on 2002-02-15 13:57 ]</font>

[quote]
On 2002-02-15 13:02, Jesse Manoogian wrote:

Does anyone else other than MSM here see anarchists as "sanctimonious fools divorced from the real world", as he says the majority are, or not take them seriously, as he says the majority don't? I just don't believe that that many people could be that completely rude and dense-headed so as to go beyond simply viewing anarchists as an enemy political philosophy, and take them as a complete joke!

Not me, Jesse. I don't look at it that starkly. One man's anarchy might be viewed as another's progress, or, a real threat. Pays to pay attention, in my book.

On 2002-02-15 13:51, Jesse Manoogian wrote:
So I'm sure, 99 to 1, that you're looking in the wrong place for Marc S. Lamb.

Are you Mr. Marc Lamb, Mr. Manoogian?

On 2002-02-15 13:44, TraceyX wrote:

Am I the only one to notice that this discussion is beginning to sound like evangelical Christians awaiting the "Rapture"?
***
Also, everyone seems to see the "Regeneracy" in the way they'd hope it to be.
***
It's very confusing. I guess my point is that the theory seems to have as many interpretations as there are people who post here. How will we ever know it's right?
***
The theory may be right, but you'll never really know unless you can somehow look at it objectively.
***
Remember that S & H seem to portray the last 4T as a little of both, or a sort of temporary (one generation long) consensus between different poles during a crisis.
***
Take off your rose-colored glasses. Even if the theory's correct, nobody knows exactly how it'll go. Stop expecting the Rapture.

:lol:

Hi, TraceyX. I bet we seem pretty looney to a newcomer, never thought about it. Guess that is what happens after being here too long! :smile:

You make some great points, of course (I snipped and saved the ones I liked best, above). You've said many of the same things that were said when Sept. 11 hit (and, from I discovered one insomniatic night in the archived posts, for a few years before then).

If we quit there, though, there'd be nothing more to say, and since half of us have a nasty addiction to this place (er, um, we like it), we merrily trudge on what-if'ing. If you stay long enough, it may overtake you, too. Please bear with us. :smile:

On 2002-02-15 14:00, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
Are you Mr. Marc Lamb, Mr. Manoogian?

Maybe Marc Lamb has multiple personality disorder.

Maybe we're ALL Marc Lamb!

I'm going to lie down for a while...

Stirring up trouble... again, Mr. Saari? Sheesh! I can only say that I an very flattered with all this attention. But if you like I can prove who I am and am not, if you wish.

Other wise, TraceyX writes, "The theory may be right, but you'll never really know unless you can somehow look at it objectively."

I started by looking the at forces that grew from the Awakening, and then finally climaxed in the Crisis. Such as the Gold Standard and Marx in the latter part of the 19th century that climaxed with the New Deal. The key to understanding what will climax in the next fourth would be to understand how these forces worked toward climax, and then apply a theory to this saeculum.

My top pick for one of the critical forces is the OPEC Oil cartel that rose up to unexpectedly in 1973. And there are, of course, others.

But the real problem, as you point out, is getting over your own politics, and paradigms of thinking in order to see the whole picture.

Something I admit, is near impossible for me to do. But then I just got over the toughest part by admitting just that. :smile:

BTW, I wish to thank Jesse Manoogian for his astute analysis. Well done, sir! Thank you.

TracyX writes...

The left-of-center people seem to think it's going to be another "New Deal", and thus either conclude we are not in 4T yet, or say we are, but make excuses for why things don't seem yet to be headed that way. But always they have faith that THEIR kind of "regeneracy" is coming. Is that the attraction to S & H theory: the idea that the theory indicates that the philosophical shifts America has had in the past 20 years are not permanent, and are destined by the theory to shift leftward?

Of course, it's more complicated than that. For example, if the above paragraph was 100% correct, then we might expect the right-of-center people to be just the opposite: assuming through faith that the next regeneracy would be a "return to conservative values", etc., and would tend to conclude that this is the 4T already (since we have a very popular conservative Republican in the White House, and 9/11 dealt a major blow to the left, etc.). There is SOME of that, but some of the more outspoken conservatives here are ALSO arguing that the regeneracy will be like the New Deal (a leftward shift), except they portray that in a BAD light, and are ALSO saying we aren't there yet.

I see the recent US crises as having both economic and human rights / democracy themes. John Hancock was a smuggler. The original revolutionary economic issue was colonial imperialism, with the colonials wanting to open the ports and avoid British taxes. At the same time the democratic and human rights themes were real. Northern desire for a strong pro industrial federal government was a parallel theme to slavery in the Civil War. The South wanted to retain a weak central government, perfectly suitable for their slave - agricultural economy. Big Government solving Big Problems was also a theme of the Depression and World War II. Democracy against Fascism was another theme.

The other common theme is that the conservative side, attempting to sustain a legal / cultural / moral system that favored continued power, generally looses. As the US is kingpin of the current world order, it should not surprise anyone if it attempts to maintain the current order using military force.

Also, the enemies of Conservatives in a Crisis are not liberals, but radicals. With 20 20 hindsight, after the new culture is reinvented, it is clear that the divine right of kings, colonial imperialism, slavery and fascism are capitol ?E? Evil. Prior to the crises, tradition and law protect such Evils. Things have always been this way. It has never been possible to correct certain types of Evil. Therefore, such Evils are blessed and justified by law and tradition. Conservatives in time of crisis have a moral blindness. It is only radicals who create new moral and political systems that, for example, ban slavery or promote human rights.

I don?t see the red/blue republican/democratic conservative/liberal divides as being the correct fission lines for a new Crisis. Yes, some liberals might want this Crisis to be a replay of FDR?s time, with a New New Deal giving more power to big government. Yes, some conservatives want this Crisis to be a replay of the Revolution or Civil War, protecting the rights of the people, limiting the powers of government. More aren?t interested in crisis. Many just want 1999 forever, unraveling eternally.

Tis not going to be a replay of the past. Can the rich keep getting richer, and the poor poorer, when the revolutionaries can get their hands on weapons of mass destruction? Can we afford religious and ethnic intolerance when bigots can get their hands on weapons of mass destruction? Must we limit resources utilized to resources recycled plus a sustainable level of exploitation?

Forget conservative / liberal. Forget a replay of past crises. Think Radical. To defeat the communists, fascists, royalists and slave owners, big government backing big business was a common theme. At this point, however, communists, fascists, loyalists and slave owners are no longer the major sources of evil. Big Government backing Big Business - the solution to past crises - has become the obvious Evil to be attacked in the next Crisis. Marx?s capitalists, Eisenhower?s Military Industrial Complex, and the modern ?special interest groups? struggling to prevent ?campaign finance reform? are different names for the same enemy. We are the enemy.

Yah, I?m rambling. No, I still haven?t found the right way to say this clearly. No, we are still in denial. People aren?t going to examine big problems until they are sure the big problems won?t go away. The time of the radicals hasn?t yet come. The liberals and conservatives yet dither.

_________________
We shall not have Freedom from Fear, everywhere in the world, while we forget the other three.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bob Butler 54 on 2002-02-15 14:58 ]</font>

I've been reading the various forums and topics for the past several weeks. I decided to post here although some of my points also relate to other forums.

I think 9/11 was the catalyst for the 4T. Although many feel its still 3T, too many Silents still in leadership, I disagree.

This is true in the U.S.A. but not in the Middle East. The generational line up for the 4T is nearly established in that region. In particular if you examine the cultural leadership of groups like Hammas, Hizbollah, Al Queda and the Taliban. There the baton has clearly passed to Prophet leaders and Nomad operational leaders/generals.

Iran, Iraq and Libya are still ruled by Silents, if the archtype birth catagories hold true. Some countries, Jordan and Syria are already ruled by the Prophet and Nomad cohorts.

And for me of concern are Sharon and Arafat, both I think GI's born in the 1920's. Is Sharon's stance post-seasonal and will it add fuel to the current crisis?

The events on 9/11 have forced us in the USA to change our focus to external threats. And its not the events but the generational line up and archtypical reactions to events that will move us deeper into the 4T. In M-Rising, S & H mentioned that milllenial global cohort lags behind USA. Does this hold true for Global Prophets/Nomads? Based on what I wrote above, I think the Middle East is ahead of us generationally in passing the baton and may have pushed us into an early 4T.

On some unrelated 4 T points. . . Anyone notice the Patriots "TEAM" intro at the superbowl - very 4T, knew with intro they were fated to win.

Someone in Dept of Justice and in IL state agencies are reading S & H. Every grant I've written in the last two years has required the formation of a community coalition to address juvenile justice and feminist criminal justice issues.

On 2002-02-15 13:02, Jesse Manoogian wrote:
...
Oh, and, one more thing. I'm a boy. :smile:

Thanks. I'll try to keep that in mind, Mr. Manoogian. :smile:

Sorry, niether Sharon nor Arafat are GI's, as neither are Americans. The same reasoning goes for all the other foreign leaders you mentioned.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: TraceyX on 2002-02-16 09:55 ]</font>

Different societies have different saecula, provided they have saecula at all. (Some are stagnant; S & H theory doesn't apply to them.)

An oldie but a goody:

FEUDALISM:
You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

SOCIALISM
You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you a glass of milk.

COMMUNISM
You share two cows with your neighbors. You and your neighbors bicker about who have the most "ability" and who has the most "need." Meanwhile, no one works, no one gets any milk, and the cows drop dead of starvation.

FASCISM
You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk. Eventually, you are drafted.

BUREAUCRACY:
You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cow.

CAPITALISM
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

ANARCHISM
You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a "fair" price or your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you. One morning, one of the cows explodes.

SURREALISM
You have two giraffes. The government makes you to take harmonica lessons.

Thanks for joining us, Tess. That was a very thoughtful post.

Not to make this an S&H fan club, but does anyone know if their T theory is gathering momentum in the schools and colleges? Are there any records being kept with which to measure the power of this meme? As historical models go, this one should not be ignored. Sometimes I wonder if we?re not all just a bunch of esoteric weidos, too smart for our own good, dancing on the edge of doom.

Oh, what would be so bad if we actually were just a bunch of esoteric weirdos, too smart for our own good, dancing on the edge of doom? "If you're on thin ice, you might as well dance."

I'm with alan on this one. I would much rather be dancing than going on one more damned march over the cliff.


Take off those combat boots and put on your dancin' shoes. HTH

Virgil--I rest my king on its side. You scored with that.

Hi, I'm Jensen. I've recently finished up studying life sciences and taking the liberal arts load up at college, and have been moving, errr, cruising, around the country a little before ending up in Seattle at least for now.

I'm 23 which would put me in the "late 13er" descriptor by the dates of Howe/Strauss theory. I read the whole "Fourth Turning" book before finding this site just today.

I definitely believe that we are of now in the Third Turning. The reason I know we are still in the Unravelling is that the generations in their roles have not turned over. The key mark of mood change in the theory is the phases of life that the various generations go through and their phases in the lifecycles. 911 has failed to catalyze a mood that will push each generation in its necessary move forward. Baby Boomers are in their "I told you so" narcissistic mood, sheepish and immensely complacent at the same time. Complacent about their Third Turning culture war stances, sheepish about acting on total, holocaustic war. They have not moved into their "Zen-like" phase yet. Boomers are not at all showing signs of wisdom, as they will with the Fourth Turning. They are not acting as wise elders, because they are not elders yet. This is too soon for the Boomers to be entering the Elderhood they will need to bring on a Crisis. Boomers in power are still listening to their Silent advisors, even Bush to some degree, despite his initial promise to turn Afghanistan into a place ruled by cockroaches. The Silents themselves have not given up their mitigation and calls for due process; their meekness and weakness is still very much heard. In their Fourth Turning incarnation, Silents would drop out, lose their role in society, and accept that they have no active place in the generational alignment anymore. The Silents I see around me every day are, in fact, not Silent but loud! They have delivered some of the best criticism of the government's Patriot Act madness, and are admitting that they are discomfited and not thrilled at all with the patriotic, lock-step mood of the Boomers below them. One might even be able to say, as a matter of fact, that because of deliberation and counting-to-ten of the Silents in our government, the response has fought an effective war while at the same time rewarding us all by allowing us the chance to keep a Third Turning mood. 13ers, or Xers, have not been crushing the anti-patriotic movement yet; in fact, far from No-nonsense Nomads, they have stayed out of the System and let the Boomers take care of the un-American thought policing. With lots of Xers so alienated from their country after the attacks, there has been no Nomad move to speak of. Consider the kind of commentary we've usually read and heard from Xers about the Boom-led flag-waving after 911: they see completely through the B.S. and snicker at the phoniness of "America United" claims and the capitalizing on it (when they're not shrewdly doing the capitalizing themselves, in Unravelling opportunist Nomad style, that is), mention the hypocrisy of ex-protester Boomers, and often give libertarian commentary about how these moralists are taking away freedoms. They see the media packaging of 911 for what it is. Xers are putting out more "Orange Countys" and more attitudinal rock soundtracks, and their peers aren't chiding them for it. They want to chill and find something cool to do, even if the economy's stalling. There are plenty of mid-1960s Xers who aren't even married (or planning to wed) nor with any children yet, while even those who are are still often off spiritually searching or enjoying life. By the time you get to Xers in the mid-1970s, it's about as far away from the Fourth Turning Nomad persona as you can get. The 1970s 13ers want and try to be cool. X-treme cool in that 1990s-derived X kind of way. Fast sudden brain Mountain-Dew'd-rush cool. Wow! Funky trippin'! Xers were supposed to turn into the Guardians of Society, championing and bringing back social rules as much as they could, and there isn't even a HINT of that happening. Sure, there were Gen-X acts of heroism on the day of September eleventh, but the firefighters and local volunteer workers were just doing what according to their job they had to be doing that day, and their generation landed up in those jobs because in this point in the Third Turning, 13ers are going to be filling the age group that covers the bulk of firefighters et al., and after all, these Xers were in firefighter jobs before anyone knew this tower attack was going to happen. A few individuals in Gen X got their accolades after being in the right place at the right time -- many posthumously -- but Xers have a negative view of civic life and are extremely cynical about this whole nationalism bag, and in the end, that really hasn't changed. As for the Millennials emerging as the next Hero generation, they haven't emerged and we don't have the military filling up with a generation announcing its destiny as being drafted. When the Crisis comes, Millennials are predicted to drop their Gen-X trappings and let their true selves emerge; if Millennials were affecting Gen-X style before, the Crisis would bring their true spirit out and give them something to rally about. The Fourth Turning would be when the true "discovery" of this generation comes, and the portrayal would suddenly change. Looking at the first birthyears of the Howe/Strauss "Millennial" range, it is clear that they had not shifted their wardrobe from X-emulating to clean-cut after the attacks, not given up the attitude. Who's filling up the clubs these days, just look, what are these kids wearing, what music are these kids listening to, how are these kids speaking? I've observed no mass shed-off to speak of. The protesters of war have been overwhelmingly high school and college age, and if you look at recent figures for military enlistments you'll see that today's 19-year-olds have barely made a generational response to the events on the eleventh. Millennials were supposed to now be emerging as a good-kid generation who amaze adults with their optimism and generation-wide call for good manners and a return to traditional culture, while instead the culture machine puts out Michelle Branch and gives these kids ever more rise to stardom continuing after September eleventh. Five Good Reasons has been going upwards too, although unfortunately for reasons totally unrelated to 911 they're going to have a hard time rising to success without Ian Anderson. Look at the continued popularity of indie bands like Anti-flag, which has been gaining followers on my college campus right to the day I left -- and these kids who were into the whole punk thing generally weren't the outcasts either. While after the Catalyst comes Heroes are supposed to be realized by everyone to be Heroic and good, there's always a newspaper column, commercial or TV or radio feature that confirms the lasting stereotype of superpredator, reckless, even dumb youth. Aside from news features put out by two stations that capitalized on "Generation 911" hype, the media has been very silent on youth activity and direction compared to before these attacks; there hasn't been much coverage of protests or any other reactions unless they could make a Klebold-style celebrity out of a particular individual (Charles Bishop, John Walker Lindh).

As the shock wears more and more off and seems more and more distant, 911 becomes almost forgettable to many people and firm Unravelling actors' roles and generational images of the generations keep the national mood from moving forward, in fact DEFINING this as a Third Turning. The fall of the towers was a jolt in itself, but the ages of all the generations in the grand scheme of things are keeping anything new from stapling a mood down because with everyone still filling the same stage they did before, a new perspective on problems unrelated to terrorism cannot be met. The Boomer smugness reasserts itself after the smoke clears and nothing has changed in the culture war arena in the end. After 911 the Right has proven to say, "Now this has finally gotten the guys on the Left to agree with me!", and the Left has only said, "Now that we can unite, those on the Right will see how right I am!" and "I've won the culture wars". Unless the lesson is to wave a few mass-commercialized flags, the Baby Boom generation has not learned its lesson.

I'm glad to see this forum with so many things to talk about -- anything you can imagine that seems connected with anything mentioned in the topic seems to have a topic. I'm glad I can connect on all these brewing sociological issue conversations and see what insights you can come up with. Ciao for now,

Jensen B.
b. 1978

Well stated, Jensen, though you could have used a paragraph or two in your argument. Small matter when dealing with such a huge subject, though. :smile:

Since your new to T4T.com, you may not understand my praise of your thesis, but everyone else here does. Thanks.

On 2002-02-16 20:47, Jensen B. '78 wrote:
Hi, I'm Jensen. I've recently finished up studying life sciences and taking the liberal arts load up at college, and have been moving, errr, cruising, around the country a little before ending up in Seattle at least for now.

I'm 23 which would put me in the "late Xer" descriptor by the dates of Howe/Strauss theory. I read the whole "Fourth Turning" book before finding this site just today.

I definitely believe that we are of now in the Third Turning. The reason I know we are still in the Unravelling is that the generations in their roles have not turned over. The key mark of mood change in the theory is the phases of life that the various generations go through and their phases in the lifecycles. 911 has failed to catalyze a mood that will push each generation in its necessary move forward. Baby Boomers are in their "I told you so" narcissistic mood, sheepish and immensely complacent at the same time. Complacent about their Third Turning culture war stances, sheepish about acting on total, holocaustic war. They have not moved into their "Zen-like" phase yet. Boomers are not at all showing signs of wisdom, as they will with the Fourth Turning. They are not acting as wise elders, because they are not elders yet. This is too soon for the Boomers to be entering the Elderhood they will need to bring on a Crisis. Boomers in power are still listening to their Silent advisors, even Bush to some degree, despite his initial promise to turn Afghanistan into a place ruled by cockroaches. The Silents themselves have not given up their mitigation and calls for due process; their meekness and weakness is still very much heard. In their Fourth Turning incarnation, Silents would drop out, lose their role in society, and accept that they have no active place in the generational alignment anymore. The Silents I see around me every day are, in fact, not Silent but loud! They have delivered some of the best criticism of the government's Patriot Act madness, and are admitting that they are discomfited and not thrilled at all with the patriotic, lock-step mood of the Boomers below them. One might even be able to say, as a matter of fact, that because of deliberation and counting-to-ten of the Silents in our government, the response has fought an effective war while at the same time rewarding us all by allowing us the chance to keep a Third Turning mood. 13ers, or Xers, have not been crushing the anti-patriotic movement yet; in fact, far from No-nonsense Nomads, they have stayed out of the System and let the Boomers take care of the un-American thought policing. With lots of Xers so alienated from their country after the attacks, there has been no Nomad move to speak of. Consider the kind of commentary we've usually read and heard from Xers about the Boom-led flag-waving after 911: they see completely through the B.S. and snicker at the phoniness of "America United" claims and the capitalizing on it (when they're not shrewdly doing the capitalizing themselves, in Unravelling opportunist Nomad style, that is), mention the hypocrisy of ex-protester Boomers, and often give libertarian commentary about how these moralists are taking away freedoms. They see the media packaging of 911 for what it is. Xers are putting out more "Orange Countys" and more attitudinal rock soundtracks, and their peers aren't chiding them for it. They want to chill and find something cool to do, even if the economy's stalling. There are plenty of mid-1960s Xers who aren't even married (or planning to wed) nor with any children yet, while even those who are are still often off spiritually searching or enjoying life. By the time you get to Xers in the mid-1970s, it's about as far away from the Fourth Turning Nomad persona as you can get. Wow! Funky trippin'! Xers were supposed to turn into the Guardians of Society, championing and bringing back social rules as much as they could, and there isn't even a HINT of that happening. Sure, there were Gen-X acts of heroism on the day of September eleventh, but the firefighters and local volunteer workers were just doing what according to their job they had to be doing that day, and their generation landed up in those jobs because in this point in the Third Turning, 13ers are going to be filling the age group that covers the bulk of firefighters et al., and after all, these Xers were in firefighter jobs before anyone knew this tower attack was going to happen. A few individuals in Gen X got their accolades after being in the right place at the right time -- many posthumously -- but Xers have a negative view of civic life and are extremely cynical about this whole nationalism bag, and in the end, that really hasn't changed. As for the Millennials emerging as the next Hero generation, they haven't emerged and we don't have the military filling up with a generation announcing its destiny as being drafted. When the Crisis comes, Millennials are predicted to drop their Gen-X trappings and let their true selves emerge; if Millennials were affecting Gen-X style before, the Crisis would bring their true spirit out and give them something to rally about. The Fourth Turning would be when the true "discovery" of this generation comes, and the portrayal would suddenly change. Looking at the first birthyears of the Howe/Strauss "Millennial" range, it is clear that they had not shifted their wardrobe from X-emulating to clean-cut after the attacks, not given up the attitude. Who's filling up the clubs these days, just look, what are these kids wearing, what music are these kids listening to, how are these kids speaking? I've observed no mass shed-off to speak of. The protesters of war have been overwhelmingly high school and college age, and if you look at recent figures for military enlistments you'll see that today's 19-year-olds have barely made a generational response to the events on the eleventh. Millennials were supposed to now be emerging as a good-kid generation who amaze adults with their optimism and generation-wide call for good manners and a return to traditional culture, while instead the culture machine puts out Michelle Branch and gives these kids ever more rise to stardom continuing after September eleventh. Five Good Reasons has been going upwards too, although unfortunately for reasons totally unrelated to 911 they're going to have a hard time rising to success without Ian Anderson. Look at the continued popularity of indie bands like Anti-flag, which has been gaining followers on my college campus right to the day I left -- and these kids who were into the whole punk thing generally weren't the outcasts either. While after the Catalyst comes Heroes are supposed to be realized by everyone to be Heroic and good, there's always a newspaper column, commercial or TV or radio feature that confirms the lasting stereotype of superpredator, reckless, even dumb youth. Aside from news features put out by two stations that capitalized on "Generation 911" hype, the media has been very silent on youth activity and direction compared to before these attacks; there hasn't been much coverage of protests or any other reactions unless they could make a Klebold-style celebrity out of a particular individual (Charles Bishop, John Walker Lindh).

As the shock wears more and more off and seems more and more distant, 911 becomes almost forgettable to many people and firm Unravelling actors' roles and generational images of the generations keep the national mood from moving forward, in fact DEFINING this as a Third Turning. The fall of the towers was a jolt in itself, but the ages of all the generations in the grand scheme of things are keeping anything new from stapling a mood down because with everyone still filling the same stage they did before, a new perspective on problems unrelated to terrorism cannot be met. The Boomer smugness reasserts itself after the smoke clears and nothing has changed in the culture war arena in the end. After 911 the Right has proven to say, "Now this has finally gotten the guys on the Left to agree with me!", and the Left has only said, "Now that we can unite, those on the Right will see how right I am!" and "I've won the culture wars". Unless the lesson is to wave a few mass-commercialized flags, the Baby Boom generation has not learned its lesson.

I'm glad to see this forum with so many things to talk about -- anything you can imagine that seems connected with anything mentioned in the topic seems to have a topic. I'm glad I can connect on all these brewing sociological issue conversations and see what insights you can come up with. Ciao for now,

Jensen B.
b. 1978

We agree completely about how each side thinks the other has yielded. The real question is: what happens when the 4T does ignite, and neither side yields?

On 2002-02-15 13:44, TraceyX wrote:


Am I the only one to notice that this discussion is beginning to sound like evangelical Christians awaiting the "Rapture"?

No, you're not alone.

Also, everyone seems to see the "Regeneracy" in the way they'd hope it to be.

The left-of-center people seem to think it's going to be another "New Deal", and thus either conclude we are not in 4T yet, or say we are, but make excuses for why things don't seem yet to be headed that way. But always they have faith that THEIR kind of "regeneracy" is coming. Is that the attraction to S & H theory: the idea that the theory indicates that the philosophical shifts America has had in the past 20 years are not permanent, and are destined by the theory to shift leftward?

Of course, it's more complicated than that. For example, if the above paragraph was 100% correct, then we might expect the right-of-center people to be just the opposite: assuming through faith that the next regeneracy would be a "return to conservative values", etc., and would tend to conclude that this is the 4T already (since we have a very popular conservative Republican in the White House, and 9/11 dealt a major blow to the left, etc.). There is SOME of that, but some of the more outspoken conservatives here are ALSO arguing that the regeneracy will be like the New Deal (a leftward shift), except they portray that in a BAD light, and are ALSO saying we aren't there yet.

More accurately, some right wingers see the upcoming 4T as being a leftward tilt (even those who don't know the theory or the terminology), and dread it.

There are also a lot of right-wingers who do indeed expect that the 4T will sweep those annoying hippies from the sixties aside, and allow them to 'get on with it'.

The theory may be right, but you'll never really know unless you can somehow look at it objectively.

To do this, consider how the 4T might very well go AGAINST what you WANT it to be (while still fitting the (very broad) outlines of S & H theory.) Get used to thinking about that possibility.

Amen. I've done a lot of that, and I don't know how the 4T will come out, or even if anything recognizable will survive it if it goes seriously wrong.

Those who think the 4T will bring the country left should consider scenarios for the opposite. Those who think the 4T will be a victory over "liberalism" should consider scenarios for the opposite.

Then, look at statistics and hard facts (not opinions) without predjudice.

Remember that S & H seem to portray the last 4T as a little of both, or a sort of temporary (one generation long) consensus between different poles during a crisis. Those on the "right" not really altering their faith in lassez faire capitalism, but accepting the New Deal as a compromise to prevent a total loss of our capitalist institutions to communism through an era of great public fear. The GI's never new anything different, and continued the compromise as long as they could. Even Nixon was hardly a "lassez faire" guy, establish price controls, etc.

Someone once asked Pat Buchanan who his favorite liberal was, and he said, "Richard Nixon". :smile:

The Missionaries were probably almost unique as Prophet generations go, in precisely this settlement. One of my darker fears is that it will turn out that it wasn't the Civil War Cycle that was anomalous, but in fact that it was the Great Power/WW II Cycle that was freakishly successful.

Those who tend to worship the memory of FDR, remember that he was quite a power-seeking individual. Ever see old movies where ordinary people had his portrait up in their living rooms? Was that for real?

I don't know if you're asking rhetorically or not, Tracey, but the answer is yes! People really did keep his picture on the wall, and think of him as something perilously close to their savior. Many had the idea that he was filled to overflowing with love and goodwill.

It all sounds utterly bizarre to us now, and to be sure there were many in his time who did not buy a word of it, even among his supporters. But those old movies are not kidding!

Imagine that kind of personality cult here in the US! Trying to pack the courts. Aggressively challenging the Japanese (not that the Nips weren't acting horrifically in China) and getting us into a war the public wanted to stay out of. FOUR TERMS! Those on the right were quite scared of FDR becoming a despot, an idiot who couldn't graduate from Columbia becoming America's Stalin...

In fact, many of FDR's own inner circle later revealed that he himself wore rose-colored glasses were Stalin was concerned.
I personally tend to believe that Roosevelt was letting his mix of idealism and power-drive get the better of his pragmatism toward the end.

(For an Idealist, FDR was practical. He was far less dreamy than Eleanor).

I believe it was Averill Harriman who said something to the effect that, "Roosevelt never understood Communism. He viewed it as a sort of extension of the New Deal."

FDR got consistently outfoxed by Stalin whenever they met to plan out the time after the War. I think FDR had himself convinced (or mostly so) that the USA and USSR could work together through the UN to really prevent future wars.

Take off your rose-colored glasses. Even if the theory's correct, nobody knows exactly how it'll go. Stop expecting the Rapture.

Or assuming that the next 4T will be the triumph of the environmentalist movement. I've had that issue come up more than once in my go-rounds with Brian Rush and Eric Meese.

It might very well be that the upcoming 4T will have a powerful environmentalist element to it. It might also be that the only role the environment will play will be to be crushed under the otherwise environmentally-irrelevant treads of the 4T.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-02-17 00:26 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-02-17 00:30 ]</font>