Originally Posted by jadams

I have also noticed that the young people want to talk about solutions and the older folks are being a little less self-righteous about their particular politics.

And the Boomers will be starting to hang their heads in shame, ever so slowly.

Originally Posted by zilch

Partisan political hackery rules at this website, dude. It sorta makes a funny mockery of an otherwise nonpartisan political theory of history.

The Revolution... Do we accept royal government, taxation without representation, and being on the wrong end of a colonial imperialism set up? Should we try for independence and democracy?

The Civil War... How do we resolve the slavery question? Status quo? End it? Should the government be supporting and enabling the Industrial Revolution?

The Great Depression / World War II... Does the Constitution really forbid government meddling in contracts between workers and employers, as the Supreme Court (excepting Oliver Wendell Holmes regular dissents on the subject) kept asserting? Should the government act to moderate boom - bust economies and provide safety nets to the population? Should the United States and other democratic governments act to contain and suppress expansion by autocratic totalitarian regimes?

In a crisis, the country faces large and important problems which require a remake of the country to properly solve. At the 3T 4T cusp, the country is still deciding whether the problems are large enough and important enough to require the effort it would take to change. One would also quite expect resistance to change from those who profit and wield power based on the status quo system and values.

As a fan of the theory, I quite expect at this point in the cycle a divide between a conservative party maintaining the status quo and a progressive party advocating decisive change to solve the most telling problems of the time. This is par for the course. This is Regeneracy, a rejection of old values and means of doing business, the beginning of a pragmatic trial and error period where new ideas are tried and the best of these new ideas become the core of the First Turning's new rigidly enforced values and methods.

Oh, yes. George III sucks. Buchanan sucks. Hoover sucks. I sort of expect the Regeneracy to be preceded by a conservative administration that demonstrates the status quo values aren't working and need be changed.

Thus, at a 3T / 4T cusp, there is going to be intense partisan politics. It is not to be wondered that a web forum dedicated to cycle theory is going to attract people inclined towards and interested in the periodic transformation of society.

It is also not to be wondered that those with conservative values supporting the status quo will be unwilling and unable to perceive their values and policies as flawed. You get what might be linear thinking. What has always worked is good. There is a inertia to extend and continue 3T policies. There will be those who deny that the critical problems of the crisis exist and should be addressed. There is a rejection of the theory. Anyone advocating regeneracy and typical crisis era transformation is perceived of as engaging in 'political hackery' rather than advocating doing as the theory says ought to be done at this point in the cycle.

A decade or two ago, the theory was a good tool for anticipating the possibility of change. I found myself watching spirals of violence, and asking which problems were not going to be able to be ignored. I was watching an internal spiral of violence developing with Waco, Ruby Ridge and OKC, and a foreign spiral of violence in the Middle East. I was seeing problems like energy, division of wealth, expanding populations, autocratic government, ethnic/religious intolerance and greenhouse warming. I attempted to extrapolate. What problems are becoming central? What is going to need to be done?

The internal spiral of violence has gone cold. A civil war fought over culture war issues like abortion and gun rights seems implausible. Terrorist activity by fundamentalist totalitarian Islam seems fading as well. At least, activity directed at the West has faded since September 11th. As usual in a crisis, the terrorist spiral of violence has been followed by full out war which makes the damage a terrorist can do seem relatively minor. True, the weapons and politics of this era are encouraging guerilla tactics. Such tactics were present in prior conflicts as well, with Rebel militias in both the Revolution and Civil war tending to do their farmers by day terrorists by night thing. Still, the bulk of the action is in Iraq and Afghanistan. Any terrorist actions in the First World have had minimal effects on policy.

We have also learned that nation building at gunpoint is an expensive and difficult process. We should not expect to be greeted as liberators. We should have a well thought through plan or not make the attempt. Purging a culture of its security forces and disqualifying all those with experience in running a government from the government is now understood to be a high risk move.

During the Clinton years I was an advocate of First World intervention in crisis areas. I did not believe we should allow warlord government to thrive, to allow genocide, ethnic cleansing, organized rapes or political famines to stand. There should be certain thresholds that would not be crossed, certain behaviors that should be rejected with prejudice. But while I was an interventionist when seeing clear crimes against humanity, I favored containment of Saddam Hussein. Our Iraq intervention caused more crimes against humanity than it prevented. The international consensus of blocking crimes against humanity that was starting to build during the Clinton years was shattered by Bush 43's serial unilateral preemptive invasion doctrine.

Lessons learned? Once the all out war starts, the free lance actions by John Brown / Sons of Liberty type terrorists provoking change becomes less. Their job has been done. Solving the problem by force, the "On to Richmond" approach, is going to be no easier in this crisis than in any other. Plausibly, it will be harder. Proxy war, the threat of weapons of mass destruction and terrorist activity is going to make it harder for the faction with the most industrial capacity to force its values on others. We cannot count on serial preemptive invasion followed by nation building at gunpoint to transform the world. The War on Terror as declared by the Bush 43 administration is not only a long hard conflict not to be solved in a single administration, but a bad approach to the problem in the long term.

And if 'On to Richmond' isn't going to work, if there is no plausible road to military victory, we just might have to address the underlying causes. We have to look at population pressures, resource availability, division of wealth and ecological concerns. These create the poverty which triggers the ethnic, religious and cultural values clashes that ignite into security problems. No amount of firepower is apt to make the underlying problems go away. As in any crisis, the fundamental transformations are ultimately more vital than the war.

Right now, as we traverse the cusp, it has become less and less necessary to review cycle theory before I go through the above spiel when talking to friends and family. A decade or two ago, I would have to make a case that every four score and seven years things really do change. I felt I had to convince people that the culture and government are not always static and unchanging. Of late, that isn't necessary. The problems are visible. There is a feeling, at least in liberal Massachusetts, that enough is enough, and furthermore, enough is too much.

In short, we are at a point where the theory isn't necessary anymore. The problems are visible. The question is not whether we need change, but whether McCain or Obama is the true agent of change. They are both running as agents of change.

The difference is that McCain is the agent of change that is endorsing Bush 43's policies. Color me dubious.

Anyway, it is possible to address the current problems from the perspective of The Theory. I can agree that too many people aren't bothering to do so. A great deal of the conversation on these forum is driven from a partisan perspective rather than a Theory perspective. On the other hand, how much more theory is needed? How often does one have to go back to first principles, to underline that change is possible and sometimes necessary? The key questions are which problems are real and which solutions are best. Knowledge of history will be helpful, but new problems require new solutions. Historical answers to crisis problems tend to be inadequate.

Thus, I haven't been posting that much recently. Call this another marker on the 3T / 4T cusp, but we no longer need the theory to consider the possibility of or necessity to change. We can discuss the problems and solutions with little reference to the theory. Those without knowledge of the theory don't need introductory lectures to understand the conversation.

Are we thus reduced to 'political hackery'? Perhaps. To the extent that some of us can't step clear of 3T values and doctrines, yes, 'political hackery' is descriptive enough of much of the conversation. That sort of thing is worth zilch. Anyway, which is more important? Should we be talking about whether we have passed the 3T 4T cusp? Or should we be asking what problems absolutely must be solved, and asking how to solve them?

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

And the Boomers will be starting to hang their heads in shame, ever so slowly.

Not all of us.

In my youth, I was a fan of the Blue Awakening. The 1950s was a time of racial inequality, gender inequality and pollution. The Military Industrial Complex had a bit much influence. The causes advocated in the 60s protests were worthy causes. I often think the Xers and Millenials take to much for granted Boomer 'idealism.' They don't know what it took or why we were willing to take the effort. They haven't had to use the second set of bathrooms, perform coat hanger abortions, or carry around a live ticking draft card.

Uh, guys. It wasn't an abstract ideal distant idealism. The flaws in 1950s America touched a lot of people very deeply. Try using your imaginations just a little bit. The rage was real. The rage was quite properly real. Just imagine how you would respond to an attempt to turn back the clock.

And I do have to acknowledge the GI generation. They took major steps to solve many of the problems the Blue Boomers objected to. There was action on civil rights, gender rights and ecology. For a good number of years, we managed to avoid quagmire wars to prop up foreign governments of dubious worth. If the Boomers took a vacation from idealistic activism during the unravelling, hey, that's cycles folks. The intensity of an awakening cannot be sustained indefinitely. Much of what needed to be done had been done.

There is a good amount of generation bashing going on on this forum. I generally don't bother to participate. I just think there will be a place in the upcoming crisis for the sort of idealism that identifies problems and makes noise until the problems are solved. Once upon a time, the Blue Boomers were famous for this. As the elder generation, can we remember the old fire? Will the old values involving equality, ecology and shunning war be of use? Can we infect younger generations who haven't been notoriously idealistic or active to pick up a torch that we ourselves had stored up in the attack?

I see no need to hang my head. Mind you, it seems quite possible to bash the 3T role played by any recent generation. No generation exactly covered itself in glory during the 3T. This makes generation bashing a trivial and pointless exercise.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

911, Katrina--and now we have the midwest floods, the last part of a perfect storm trifecta? Will how the government(s) respond to this disaster tell us whether we have turned the corner into the 4T? Some posters have assumed that this has been the 3T that refuses to die. If response to the midwest floods are bungled, will that be the cue that we are not totally 4T yet? I believe we may be turning the corner, and by the time the Oh-oh decade ends in 18 months we will be totally 4T. Agree or disagree?

Have there been 'government responses inadequate' stories coming out? I haven't been catching any. Most of the spin has been 'forces of nature' driven, at least that I've seen so far.

On the large scale, the government is still running on 3T doctrines. Promise tax cuts without allowing the deficit get too absurd. This does imply reduced services. That won't have been turned around at this point.

But most of the Katrina stories weren't lack of resources stories, but lack of competence. Too many political appointees. Too much restructuring that gave resources to homeland defense rather than FEMA. There were new and ineffective chains of command resulting from the post September 11th change in priorities and the associated bureaucratic infighting. Too much attention was given to public relations, not enough to the needs of the people caught in the disaster. The bureaucrats hadn't figured out yet that e-mails can be subpoenaed, and were not writing internal e-mails from a public relations point of view.

I would hope the culture and command structure of government disaster relief efforts aren't as messed up now as they were for Katrina. While I'm not a big fan of the Bush 43 administration, they do seem to have some ability to learn from mistakes.

I called 'catalyst' on Katrina when she was still a half day off shore. The floods (like last year's fires in California) might count as a minor element of the cascade, nudging the People into demanding better performance and service out of the government. I doubt they will come to have the impact of September 11th or Katrina.

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

And the Boomers will be starting to hang their heads in shame, ever so slowly.

You think so? We are pretty self-absorbed, after all.

(a short response to a partisan hack on my Ignore list):

Partisan political hackery rules at this website, dude. It sorta makes a funny mockery of an otherwise nonpartisan political theory of history.

Partisan hacks appear in all times and places. The partisan hacks of the last stage of a 3T are usually corrupt and unresponsive, if not despotic as well. We have just experienced the worst partisan hacks that we have ever known at the federal level, people who find patronage the highest of economic virtues and blind obedience the highest of moral virtues. The corresponding factions had their faults in the 1990s but all in all the gridlock that they created kept the government from blowing off money as if it did not matter. It has gotten ugly this time.

We have gotten a consistent line from the Bush administration that if we give everything that we can to the Right People, then we can expect to get back what we give the Right People back through greater productivity and innovation. In practice we have found that those "Right People" themselves have insatiable appetites for more and more. People are now looking for second jobs or selling off assets acquired in the good times just to meet current needs. As those Right People find antiques, vacation houses, and the proceeds of insurance policies and savings accounts flowing toward them as rewards for underpaying people while cracking the whip, they ask for even bigger tax cuts and the establishment of cartels and trusts.

I don't deny that the Democratic Party has just as much proclivity to attract partisan hacks. So long as those hacks offer genuine solutions to our economic and political distress, we will have to accept their flaws. We can never achieve perfect politics from liberal democracy, but we can expect liberal democracy to find better solutions than those that illiberal tyrants and elitists offer.

We don't need to cast blame at any ethnic or religious group; the corruption and vileness that pervade American life have too many fathers and mothers to not include people of all origins. We need to do things differently lest the rot that characterizes a late 3T make our distress beyond any solution other than destroying everything and starting over.

A 4T necessitates sacrifices. Those who have waxed fat during a 3T must expect to share the bounty that they got through high taxes -- which is far better than outright confiscation. (Sure, I'd turn the RICO Act upon the outright crooks, but I'm not going to claim like Bertholt Brecht that all businessmen are crooks). We're going to need technical and entrepreneurial solutions to our economic distress, so we had better not resort to Commie-style collectivism or to populist contempt for the intellect. We're going to need to share such (probably lesser) bounty as we get in a 4T, so we had better allow people to have strong unions to contest bureaucratic organizations. We will need to cut the patronage in government so that we can have a government that can change directions as necessary to meet economic distress. We will need to reform education so that people don't need to get college degrees to prove their worthiness to employers. We will need a mass culture that works again (as it did in the late 1930s and early 1940s) at multiple levels of esthetics and to people across the spectrum of intellect, region, ethnicity, class, and age. We will need a restoration of integrity in government so that it doesn't blunder into debacles just to protect a flawed view of reality.

The military academies have their honor codes that although written differently expresses the same reasonable minimum for professional activity of any kind:

Don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, and don't tolerate lying, cheating, or stealing by others.

A 3T encourages dishonesty, rapaciousness, ruthlessness, and selfishness while destroying any sense of duty or community. Such a moral universe encourages people to do things only for gain or for personal indulgence and thus encourages people even in positions of trust to betray such trust by lying, cheating, and stealing.

Note well why that honor code exists for prospective military officers; lying, cheating, and stealing can get people killed, and military service is dangerous enough due to the nature of weapons and combat. But such an honor code also is a good idea for physicians, engineers, accountants, teachers, police, fire fighters, and business executives. To be sure, the martial culture is inappropriate for most of civilian life, but integrity is appropriate. Sure, there are some little white lies, as in "No, you are not getting a bicycle for Christmas", "That dress looks great on you", or "What a delightful potato salad" intended to avoid hurt feelings. "I had to work late at the office" when in fact one was fornicating with someone from the typing pool likewise requires one lie after another to protect the image of innocence. But all in all, one can't steal anything without lying about it, and one lie fosters another and another.

The talent with which to pull off a scam won't be so rewarding when people lack the funds to be scammed and when the legal system gets very harsh toward wrongdoers

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

And the Boomers will be starting to hang their heads in shame, ever so slowly.

Even as your numbers do so swell:

Droop not thy head dear Crown of Creation!
Lest, the lower orders become anxious.

This was the first thread I started reading. I thought this could use a BUMP!

It turned out that 9/11 didn't trigger anything directly, and as we move further out from it in history looks increasingly more like the 2000 election than the 2008 financial crisis - a bad omen, but not the thing itself.

Originally Posted by Einzige

It turned out that 9/11 didn't trigger anything directly, and as we move further out from it in history looks increasingly more like the 2000 election than the 2008 financial crisis - a bad omen, but not the thing itself.

I would go with aggregate of the 2000 election, and GWB response to 9/11 as twins. That the oil guys were in there eyeball deep stirring things into a froth only added to the problem. What we don't know for sure: was any of that important in the longer run? Bob Butler argues that the extreme pro-military swing is important, in and of itself. It certainly was a 180 degree reversal of attitudes, so the argument has weight.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

This was the first thread I started reading. I thought this could use a BUMP!

Thanks for the bump. I'm going to be focusing on SCOTUS opinions in a bit but I'll be sure to read Strauss's opening post soon enough.

Bump!

The first thread I read from beginning to end, FWIW.

JDG has a point in pointing us toward the OP by the author. Generally, he was unsure, but looked at some factors. The generational timing would have to mirror that of the Civil War, in order for the generations to be of the right age. But that is not a reliable indicator, in my opinion, because it was an "anomaly" according to him. I'm not sure that the anomaly can be completely disregarded, given his biographical scholarship. But the structure of the events to me suggests that it could be revised, with about 1850 instead of 1861 as the start of the civil war 4T, so that the civil war was not "ahead of schedule" but right on schedule. There's good reason to smooth out the schedule instead of proposing a 30-year prophet generation.

Of course, my astrological theory that Uranus indicates the timing of the crisis climax, seems pretty irrefutable. The timing is quite exact, in fact. So even if turnings were slower in earlier times, since America existed from colonial times to the present, the 84-year cycle kept things moving. The civil war came right on schedule; it could not have been more on schedule, from the Uranus point of view. The Ft. Sumpter attack was in the same exact degree and minute of the zodiac as when the Declaration of Independence was signed. The same applies to D-Day-- exact degree and minute-- which the authors have called the crisis climax of that cycle as well.

In other respects his opening post bears re-reading when discussing this thread's topic. He gave a list of criteria to determine whether 9-11 was the catalyst. Let's see how they bear out. (LI means "list item")

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

I don't think 9-11 qualifies in that respect. Other problems continued to be discussed on their own merits. In voter's minds, abortion seemed to be #1 in 2004.

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

Bush's Project for a New American Century and a "new" foreign policy of preventive war justified by 9-11 does seem to fit this criteria. It did not last, though, because it was built on lies, and it faced determined opposition in the 2004 and 2006 elections. Obama was nominated in 2008 because he opposed it.

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

No, we did not destroy the Islamic terrorists. We have used limited wars and drones, not total war, to deal with them.

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

I could see this one asserted, since the Patriot Act abridged individual rights. However, the consensus to support this is not there. The abridgement has remained in force despite scandal and controversy about it. Still, our generations still seemed preoccupied with their own lives in the 2000s, even if self-expression was not as wild as it was before. But given the propensities of our popular pop stars and athletes, I don't think I can subscribe to this one, and if anything it would support a continued 3T as of now. Obama attempted to make this shift in political life in 2008; but he has not succeeded very well.

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

Obviously this did not happen. Of course he linked "red zone/blue zone" debates to the "culture wars," when in fact now it is mainly an economic issues divide. The culture wars dominated the 2004 election, so 9-11 didn't end this at all. After 2008, the red/blue divide is playing out mostly on economics, so now it tends to prove the 2008 date. Some Second Turning debates always remain relevant in 4Ts. So he's wrong on that idea. But the cultural aspect declines, and the institutional and economic aspect of these debates takes over. That's what's happened.

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

I can't buy this one. Donald Trump practically disproves this one all by himself. We still have a dominant celebrity culture. The flagpole sitters did not come down.

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

This seems to be happening in the post-2008 era rather than in 2001-2008. Obama has tightened the border, and that's still not good enough for the nativists.

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

All this didn't happen in 2001, and arguably has still not happened. Millennials did not and have not emerged as heroes, but still receive criticism. But the pop culture has shifted a great deal towards less violent, more positive songs and uplifting melodies since 2008. Could you imagine this song being a hit in 2001? Surveys I saw showed that more songs are in major keys now for the first time since the early 2T.
https://youtu.be/Y66j_BUCBMY

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

I'm not sure, actually. Bush's Iraq War did call on human courage, but there was no draft, and the scale did not approach WWII.

<LI> A shattering of consumer confidence. Is the economy still expected to veer up and avoid a recession, or will we soon see newly dark forecasts about a likely recession-or worse. What will happen to the Dow and Nasdaq? With every major global economy sinking even before Tuesday, will there be talk of a "perfect storm." As for the direct impact of the event itself, how should we assess the damage to the WTC towers, to the travel and entertainment industries, to America's global reputation for inviolability, and to the immediate household lurch toward consumer caution and liquidity? The longer the up-cycle-and it's been a long one-the graver the risk that the trip down could be vertiginous.

The 2001 recession was short. Recovery was weak, but it did get going-- until 2008. None of the other 4T traits mentioned here matches what happened at all. Small household investors became much more risk-taking, not less. Obviously the trajectory of that put us in 1920, not 1930.

So 3 of these 10 criteria apply, at least in part; none wholly. Two of those 3 concerned the Iraq War.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

JDG has a point in pointing us toward the OP by the author. Generally, he was unsure, but looked at some factors. The generational timing would have to mirror that of the Civil War, in order for the generations to be of the right age. But that is not a reliable indicator, in my opinion, because it was an "anomaly" according to him. I'm not sure that the anomaly can be completely disregarded, given his biographical scholarship. But the structure of the events to me suggests that it could be revised, with about 1850 instead of 1861 as the start of the civil war 4T, so that the civil war was not "ahead of schedule" but right on schedule. There's good reason to smooth out the schedule instead of proposing a 30-year prophet generation.

Of course, my astrological theory that Uranus indicates the timing of the crisis climax, seems pretty irrefutable. The timing is quite exact, in fact. So even if turnings were slower in earlier times, since America existed from colonial times to the present, the 84-year cycle kept things moving. The civil war came right on schedule; it could not have been more on schedule, from the Uranus point of view. The Ft. Sumpter attack was in the same exact degree and minute of the zodiac as when the Declaration of Independence was signed. The same applies to D-Day-- exact degree and minute-- which the authors have called the crisis climax of that cycle as well.

In other respects his opening post bears re-reading when discussing this thread's topic. He gave a list of criteria to determine whether 9-11 was the catalyst. Let's see how they bear out. (LI means "list item")

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

I don't think 9-11 qualifies in that respect. Other problems continued to be discussed on their own merits. In voter's minds, abortion seemed to be #1 in 2004.

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

Bush's Project for a New American Century and a "new" foreign policy of preventive war justified by 9-11 does seem to fit this criteria. It did not last, though, because it was built on lies, and it faced determined opposition in the 2004 and 2006 elections. Obama was nominated in 2008 because he opposed it.

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

No, we did not destroy the Islamic terrorists. We have used limited wars and drones, not total war, to deal with them.

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

I could see this one asserted, since the Patriot Act abridged individual rights. However, the consensus to support this is not there. The abridgement has remained in force despite scandal and controversy about it. Still, our generations still seemed preoccupied with their own lives in the 2000s, even if self-expression was not as wild as it was before. But given the propensities of our popular pop stars and athletes, I don't think I can subscribe to this one, and if anything it would support a continued 3T as of now. Obama attempted to make this shift in political life in 2008; but he has not succeeded very well.

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

Obviously this did not happen. Of course he linked "red zone/blue zone" debates to the "culture wars," when in fact now it is mainly an economic issues divide. The culture wars dominated the 2004 election, so 9-11 didn't end this at all. After 2008, the red/blue divide is playing out mostly on economics, so now it tends to prove the 2008 date. Some Second Turning debates always remain relevant in 4Ts. So he's wrong on that idea. But the cultural aspect declines, and the institutional and economic aspect of these debates takes over. That's what's happened.

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

I can't buy this one. Donald Trump practically disproves this one all by himself. We still have a dominant celebrity culture. The flagpole sitters did not come down.

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

This seems to be happening in the post-2008 era rather than in 2001-2008. Obama has tightened the border, and that's still not good enough for the nativists.

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

All this didn't happen in 2001, and arguably has still not happened. Millennials did not and have not emerged as heroes, but still receive criticism. But the pop culture has shifted a great deal towards less violent, more positive songs and uplifting melodies since 2008. Could you imagine this song being a hit in 2001? Surveys I saw showed that more songs are in major keys now for the first time since the early 2T.
https://youtu.be/Y66j_BUCBMY

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

I'm not sure, actually. Bush's Iraq War did call on human courage, but there was no draft, and the scale did not approach WWII.

<LI> A shattering of consumer confidence. Is the economy still expected to veer up and avoid a recession, or will we soon see newly dark forecasts about a likely recession-or worse. What will happen to the Dow and Nasdaq? With every major global economy sinking even before Tuesday, will there be talk of a "perfect storm." As for the direct impact of the event itself, how should we assess the damage to the WTC towers, to the travel and entertainment industries, to America's global reputation for inviolability, and to the immediate household lurch toward consumer caution and liquidity? The longer the up-cycle-and it's been a long one-the graver the risk that the trip down could be vertiginous.

The 2001 recession was short. Recovery was weak, but it did get going-- until 2008. None of the other 4T traits mentioned here matches what happened at all. Small household investors became much more risk-taking, not less. Obviously the trajectory of that put us in 1920, not 1930.

So 3 of these 10 criteria apply, at least in part; none wholly. Two of those 3 concerned the Iraq War.

I found your comment concerning more uplifting songs taking hold to be interesting. Just the other day I was thinking about this. But somehow I doubt that some of the hit songs from bygone days would go anywhere today. One example that comes to mind is "Poetry in Motion" which topped the charts in late 1960. While it is indeed a very uplifting song, somehow I feel that the song might be considered "too sexist" for today's politically correct culture. One among many. What do you think? Do you think the song would even receive airplay today? This is not meant to take anything away from the uplifting song; just to demonstrate how much the culture has changed since that time.

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.

This is one where I think the OP got it wrong. Celebrity culture continued well through the 1930s and 1940s. Otherwise how would all those Bobby-Soxers swoon over the crooning of Old Blue Eyes or Bing?

What changes about Celebrity culture is that it becomes more homogenized and less controversial. The celebrities become more wholesome and clean cut.

Considering the late 1990s/early 2000s was a revival in IT girl culture (last famous in the 1920s) with Spears, Lohan, Hilton, and Kardashian (just to name a few) being the representatives of such zeitgeist, I'd say most of the 2000s popular culture fails this task. I mean you can quite easily turn Spears and her music into a cutesy Betty Boop style singer. And in 2003 Paris Hilton could release sex tapes rather proudly, while in 2014 a hacker had to hack the Cloud to get nude photos of celebrity girls released. That right there shows a major change in culture.

However let's look at celebrities that have appeared since then: Swift, Adele, Trainor, etc. I don't follow them but I know enough of them to know that they're far far tamer than what the majority of that "IT" girl club (and more in the mold established by Hairspray of having a voluptuous girl singer--Swift being an exception to this mold--singing retro-Doo Wop essentially, that's far from controversial (heck this song is only controversial if you're in elementary school).

Largely the retro-Doo Wop music that's been popular for a little while now is what I'd compare to the crooners of the late 1930s (mentioned above). So we're in a mid-late 1930s culture where the big thing is dance music (Big Band & EDM) with a counterpoint of melodic singers (Crooners & retro-Doo Wop).

And that's just in music. Personally, what I've been drawn to are the last dregs of Generation X re-contextualizing 2T music of their childhood through their own lenses: psychedelic music or folk music, which while around, hasn't been "mainstream" so much.

So celebrity culture since 2008 has done what S&H predicted, for the large part.

~Chas'88

I was of the opinion that 911 was the start of the 4T (see the Kondratieff Wave And The Fourth Turning thread in The Future section at the old site):

Originally Posted by Me on August 21, 2000

this would imply that Kondratiev winter and the Crisis period should be starting now, most probably with a major market peak, which is what the stock cycle model predicted.

The previous year the idea of the 2000 election as the start of the 4T had been discussed. See the thread on the topic in The Future section of the old site.

But we now have 15 years of hindsight. Surely one can tell by now? After all the previous 4T lasted 17 years , which would put the end of this one in three years.

Considering that my 2000 prediction was made on the basis of the Stock Cycle and that in that book I predicted the end of the secular bear market in 2010-2014. Unless my predicted drop comes true then the secular bear market that began in 2000 will have ended in 2009. According to the correlation between the stock cycle, K-cycle and saeculum I predicted a start of the 4T around 2000 and an end of the K-cycle down turn around 2015:

Originally Posted by Me on August 21 2000

A modified interpretation of the K-cycle posits 1980 as the most recent K-peak instead of 1974. Adding six years onto the upwave and another six years on to the downwave would give a 66-year cycle, arguing that the trough should occur around 2015.

The 4T end would presumably come around then.

So here we are!

1. Things change abruptly and for a long time.

That did not happen.

2. People are expected to change their ways from either hedonism or money-grubbing to a focus on national survival.

Didn't happen. The President told us to "go shopping" and "go travel".

3. People are willing to make sacrifices such as military service and higher taxes.

It didn't happen. As World War II approached America as a threat, numerous sports stars and film stars went into military service. Pat Tillman was the blatant exception this time. He did pay the ultimate price in Afghanistan -- but there is a very important bridge with his name on it to the east of Las Vegas.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

1. Things change abruptly and for a long time.

That did not happen.

2. People are expected to change their ways from either hedonism or money-grubbing to a focus on national survival.

Didn't happen. The President told us to "go shopping" and "go travel".

3. People are willing to make sacrifices such as military service and higher taxes.

It didn't happen. As World War II approached America as a threat, numerous sports stars and film stars went into military service. Pat Tillman was the blatant exception this time. He did pay the ultimate price in Afghanistan -- but there is a very important bridge with his name on it to the east of Las Vegas.

I am curious as to where you found your 1, 2, 3 on this one. You nailed all three of them. Item #2 is interesting in that at the onset of the 3T the society by and large changed their ways from hedonism to money-grubbing. In fact an article in a magazine at the time (circa 1987) proclaimed money as having become the new sex, with Wall Street as chief whorehouse. That still seems very true nearly three decades later.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

I am curious as to where you found your 1, 2, 3 on this one. You nailed all three of them. Item #2 is interesting in that at the onset of the 3T the society by and large changed their ways from hedonism to money-grubbing. In fact an article in a magazine at the time (circa 1987) proclaimed money as having become the new sex, with Wall Street as chief whorehouse. That still seems very true nearly three decades later.

Basically, Howe and Strauss themselves (Generations and The Fourth Turning).



People make rational conclusions in a 4T that when maximal danger approaches, there are more important things in life than indulgence and making big money. I was all set to start work in a war plant and buy the 2001 equivalent of War Bonds...

But it was sixty years away from the Pearl Harbor attack (still 3T) and not seventy years later (4T). Beyond any doubt, Dubya was a stereotypical 3T leader, someone who gives the advice of Aleister Crowley on the right way to live -- "Do what thou wilt".

The hint should have been the collapse of Enrob Corporation in 2001, analogous in some significant ways to (and about eighty years after) the Teapot Dome scandal. Energy, good buddies of the President? Dubya was much more an analogue to Warren G. Harding than to FDR.

Hedonism and money-grubbing are compatible; so it was in the Roaring Twenties and the Double-Zero Decade. Until the end of a 3T, the middle class can still participate in both (and the working class is rendered poor).. At the end of the 3T, only the elites can participate in either (but still both). Such behavior begins to look cruel and wasteful -- and thus abominable in a world in which almost everyone must struggle for survival.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...the oil guys were in there eyeball deep stirring things into a froth only added to the problem...

-What the 4377 are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Bronco80

Thanks for the bump. I'm going to be focusing on SCOTUS opinions in a bit but I'll be sure to read Strauss's opening post soon enough.

-You welcome.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

This is one where I think the OP got it wrong. Celebrity culture continued well through the 1930s and 1940s. Otherwise how would all those Bobby-Soxers swoon over the crooning of Old Blue Eyes or Bing?

What changes about Celebrity culture is that it becomes more homogenized and less controversial. The celebrities become more wholesome and clean cut.

Considering the late 1990s/early 2000s was a revival in IT girl culture (last famous in the 1920s) with Spears, Lohan, Hilton, and Kardashian (just to name a few) being the representatives of such zeitgeist, I'd say most of the 2000s popular culture fails this task. I mean you can quite easily turn Spears and her music into a cutesy Betty Boop style singer. And in 2003 Paris Hilton could release sex tapes rather proudly, while in 2014 a hacker had to hack the Cloud to get nude photos of celebrity girls released. That right there shows a major change in culture.

However let's look at celebrities that have appeared since then: Swift, Adele, Trainor, etc. I don't follow them but I know enough of them to know that they're far far tamer than what the majority of that "IT" girl club (and more in the mold established by Hairspray of having a voluptuous girl singer--Swift being an exception to this mold--singing retro-Doo Wop essentially, that's far from controversial (heck this song is only controversial if you're in elementary school).

Largely the retro-Doo Wop music that's been popular for a little while now is what I'd compare to the crooners of the late 1930s (mentioned above). So we're in a mid-late 1930s culture where the big thing is dance music (Big Band & EDM) with a counterpoint of melodic singers (Crooners & retro-Doo Wop).

And that's just in music. Personally, what I've been drawn to are the last dregs of Generation X re-contextualizing 2T music of their childhood through their own lenses: psychedelic music or folk music, which while around, hasn't been "mainstream" so much.

So celebrity culture since 2008 has done what S&H predicted, for the large part.

~Chas'88

Nick Jonas and Bieber are definitely the return of the crooner with Kendrick Lamar being the second coming of Dizzie and Bebop.

Originally Posted by millennialX

Nick Jonas and Bieber are definitely the return of the crooner with Kendrick Lamar being the second coming of Dizzie and Bebop.

I'm not real familiar with all of these kind of songs, but Bieber's popular "Baby" song is definitely a doo-wap revival/neo-crooner combo.