On 2001-10-21 12:17, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:

Of these three the 2013 crisis era beginning fits the best, and that's why S&H used it in Generations. There is no reason to move the crisis era up between Generations (1991) and T4T (1997).

In Generations, there are a few contradictions. On page 381, S&H project the crisis to last from 2013 to 2024, which is only 11 years. They project the Climax to occur around 2020. However, on page 401, they discuss Boomers entering elderhood during a Crisis Era, which they project to last from 2004 to 2025 (a "proper" 22-year turning).

:???

Apparently, they believe that 4T will start around 2004 (and 1/1/04 is only 2 years and 3 months after 9/11/01) but we won't be in full 4T Crisis mode until 2013.

Generational lengths clearly are shortening. That is causing a lot of the confusion both about their model and where we are in it.

_________________
Does it really need to be that when a disaster happens, that's when the big alarm bell goes off, that's when we start to think about these things? Why does it have to take a disaster to acknowledge the beauty of being alive? -- Maharaji

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jenny Genser on 2001-10-21 13:47 ]</font>

On 2001-10-21 13:05, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
S&H's model is critically dependent on the idea of phase of life. If the Crisis is starting now this means that each gen will be performing their phase-of-life tasks at what llok like to me to be pretty young ages:

rising adulthood heroes (19 vs. 27 past avg),
mid-life managers (39 vs. to 52 past avg), visionary elders (59 vs. 73 past avg).

And as I mentioned before, a lot of Artists will still be young enough to play a role, yet there is no role for them in the S&H model. In the past they were mostly gone, and the few left were very old.

Yet differences abound in the current cycle. In our current world, CEOs in their 40s and 50s are commonplace, unlike at any time in the past. Some are in their late 30s.

Also, acceptance of middle managers who are merely in their middle twenties to late thirties is much more common these days. The old paradigm of tenured management (and tenured leadership) has been changed to some extent. There are PLENTY of Xers managing, and there are PLENTY of Boomers leading.

Finally, we have had Boomer leadership for many years now. We are in the 9th year of Boomer leadership in the U.S.A., and we're at least a few years in for the U.K.

A thing to remember is that "statistical ages" are much less important than generational reaction to the events that unfold.

Let's do a pulse on the generational reaction...

Greatest: Hey, we're still around! If you thought the Silents would hold everybody back, then you have to factor in that we see this as another WWII, another Pearl Harbor, and we support military action.

Silents: advocating compromise and caution, but sufficiently enraged by events so as to be "silenced" for all intents on the current crisis. Situation is backwards, the younger leader has older advisers, unheard of historically.

Boomers: Leading forcefully. Bush is dragging his Silent advisers along with very strong language, and they are acquiescing. Blair is leading forcefully as well.

GenX: Are we being the realistic, get-things-done middle managers? First Wave, definitely yes. Second wave will have time to grow into their role, as I don't see the conflict ending soon. Plus, we are adamantly pro-war, probably more so than any other generation right now.

Millennials: Are they acting like Heroes or left-over Nomads? Let's see, they're signing up for the military, for the FBI, for the CIA, for police and fire positions. The younger ones are flying flags and collecting donations.

So I would say that, although the Crisis is a little early, by the generational reaction, we most definitely are in the 4T. Contrast our reaction on this crisis to say the Gulf War or Somalia. Mountains of difference.

The actual ages of the different generations are only important with respect to how their roles are interpreted in society. In a society that accepts 29-year-old managers and 42-year-old CEOs and 50-something presidents and senators and generals, we can most definitely be at the start of 4T, silents be damned.

Jenny:
I found a site that mirrors what you have suggested in prior postings.
http://www.nimn.org/

On 2001-10-21 13:47, SMA wrote:
So I would say that, although the Crisis is a little early, by the generational reaction, we most definitely are in the 4T. Contrast our reaction on this crisis to say the Gulf War or Somalia. Mountains of difference.

I'm not certain I'm seeing this "difference," at least not in our official reaction to it. We are engaging in an air war, with projected minimal ground troop activity -- the same as Bosnia and Kuwait. Because of 911, we are more willing to engage in protracted land-based warfare. Polls in 1991 showed decreasing popular support for any scenarios that involved committing ground troops...but this war is being conducted as if those polls were still relevant. I'm inclined to see "Silent" handiwork all over this war, and little real passion from G.W. beyond the occasional "smoke 'em out" sound bite.

This is not to say that we are not in a 4T mode, only that we're merely sticking our toes in the cold water of the Turning. The elections of 2002 will be more telling, I think. I'd be interested in the makeup of the next Congress, not the makeup of this Administration which was assembled with a minimalist government in mind.

Culturally, we will not be in a true 4T state of mind until we see Mark Wahlberg and Nomar Garciaparra in uniform.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin1952 on 2001-10-21 14:53 ]</font>

Good point, Kevin. I think we're definitely in the *early* stages of 4T.

But I think tolerance for casualties is *much* higher than it was in the Gulf or Somalia, and although Silent Colin is trying to keep us in 3T, I think Subliminable George has turned into Mad-As-Hell George.

As the 4T progresses, we'll see more casualties, and we'll accept them, not cry for retreat.

Do we need a draft for this Crisis, with baseball players & Marky Mark in uniform? Nope, different kind of war. But there's already proposals for a National I.D. card, already talk of "loose lips sink ships", already talk of a "long, protracted conflict", already black & white lines drawn in the sand.

Yes, this is the 4T. It will progress, mark my words.

Generations, page 402

"What happens if the crisis comes early? What if the Millennium--the year 2000 or soon thereafter--provides Boomers with the occasion to impose their 'millennial' visions on the world? The generational cycle suggests that the risk of cataclysm would be very high."

That's a mouthful of heady stuff right there, folks. When they say 'Boomers,' I began to think bin laden, not Bush. Wow. But can he [bin Laden] really pull this 'cataclysm' off? Not imho. So that leaves Bush, Blair and the West World Boomer brigades to push for some hot-under-the-collar hellfire and brimstone, right?

S&H continue, "During the 2000-2009 decade, Boomers will be squarely in midlife and nearing the peak of their political and institutional power."

Here is where I think the whole case for the 'early' 4T scenario breaks down: Boomers, for all their lofty rhetoric and pushy power-playing, are behind the curve on this 'peaking' business. To explore this 'peaking' business I began the Generations and Turnings by the Numbers thread.

This is how the current national leadership share breaksdown generationally:

G.I @ 1.4%
Silent @ 35.2%
Boomer @ 57.6%
Xer's @ 5.8%

Note:
The Missionaries peaked in 1923, the Lost in 1943, the GIs peaked in 1965, and the Silents in 1985. And all these generations peaked with their members at an average age of 51-52 years.

Currently, the constellational makeup is roughly the same as that in the 1913-15 time period wherein America was faced with an event similar to 911 (anybody wanna guess?)

The trend has been twenty-plus years in between generations peaking. Therefore the Boomers should be about 2005 at an average age of 52, just as S&H suggested.

But given the current makeup, can they? It took the Missionary generation eight years to peak with numbers similar to where the Boomers stand now.

In short, we Boomers are behind the 'peaking' trend. And not in that 'cataclysmic' era suggested by S&H. :smile:



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2001-10-21 16:51 ]</font>

On 2001-10-21 13:46, Jenny Genser wrote:
In Generations, there are a few contradictions. On page 381, S&H project the crisis to last from 2013 to 2024, which is only 11 years. They project the Climax to occur around 2020. However, on page 401, they discuss Boomers entering elderhood during a Crisis Era, which they project to last from 2004 to 2025 (a "proper" 22-year turning).

:???

Apparently, they believe that 4T will start around 2004 (and 1/1/04 is only 2 years and 3 months after 9/11/01) but we won't be in full 4T Crisis mode until 2013.

Generational lengths clearly are shortening. That is causing a lot of the confusion both about their model and where we are in it.

I think what you have to remember (and anyone else prone to incorporating Generations into a discussion), is that at the time it was written the theories weren't as fleshed out as they were by T4T. To put a point on it - there were no Turnings as we now think of them. There were Crises and Awakenings, and intervening periods, but the idea that there really were four relatively "equal" seasons was yet to come. That book was focused on the nature of the generations themselves, and not as much on events. When you look back at the book for what it is - the documentation that forms the foundation for a more thoroughly defined theory which follows later - it's much easier to see past the inconsistancies.

I see an opposite problem with T4T, but I won't go into that here.

_________________
Christopher O'Conor
aka "Opusaug"
proud 13er, '68 cohort

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chris '68 on 2001-10-21 19:54 ]</font>

Here, Marc Lamb wrote:

"There was a critical issue that was resolved in the '20s that was not resolved in the 1850s: To be absolutely blunt here, each Awakening spawns an 'empowered' liberal mindset among the 'anointed ones'. In the antebellum, it was, as just about every historian has noted, a Christian notion of 'sanctification,' or 'set apart' for a greater purpose. In the pre-WWI daze, it was Marxist induced 'socialism.'

Today it is... epitomized by 'First in his class,' William Jefferson Clinton and his faithful supporters (like those found here at T4T)."

And here, one can see just what I meant by what I wrote.

"Today, in the sad aftermath of 911, we are witnessing a total discrediting of an, heretofore 'empowered' liberal political elite in an 'antebullum' period of our nation's history."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2001-10-21 20:04 ]</font>

On 2001-10-21 06:48, Lis '54 wrote:

On 2001-10-20 21:29, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
OK, here's a gem about some potential weapon systems which might be used in the upcoming battles, and I was wondering if these were weapons suited to a Prophet's outlook on the enemy:

Suited to a Prophet's outlook on the enemy? What does that mean, exactly? How is something suitable to an outlook?

I should have phrased that better, Lis. What I meant was, these are either intentionally non-lethal weapons, or akin to such. A lot of R&D has gone into so-called 'nonlethals' over the last few years, with limited success.

My question was: would a Prophet generation in 4T be pleased with such weapons, or would they by intellection or instinct prefer the deadliest, most 'final' personal weapons available?

In science-fiction terms, put it this way: would a Gray Champion want the phasers set on stun or kill?

On 2001-10-21 19:53, Chris '68 wrote:

On 2001-10-21 13:46, Jenny Genser wrote:
In Generations, there are a few contradictions. On page 381, S&H project the crisis to last from 2013 to 2024, which is only 11 years. They project the Climax to occur around 2020. However, on page 401, they discuss Boomers entering elderhood during a Crisis Era, which they project to last from 2004 to 2025 (a "proper" 22-year turning).

:???

Apparently, they believe that 4T will start around 2004 (and 1/1/04 is only 2 years and 3 months after 9/11/01) but we won't be in full 4T Crisis mode until 2013.

Generational lengths clearly are shortening. That is causing a lot of the confusion both about their model and where we are in it.

I think what you have to remember (and anyone else prone to incorporating Generations into a discussion), is that at the time it was written the theories weren't as fleshed out as they were by T4T. To put a point on it - there were no Turnings as we now think of them. There were Crises and Awakenings, and intervening periods, but the idea that there really were four relatively "equal" seasons was yet to come. That book was focused on the nature of the generations themselves, and not as much on events. When you look back at the book for what it is - the documentation that forms the foundation for a more thoroughly defined theory which follows later - it's much easier to see past the inconsistancies.

I see an opposite problem with T4T, but I won't go into that here.

I actually think that in some ways, they hit the generational boundaries closer in Generations than they did in T4T. The greater 'looseness' of Generations gives a better view than the later version, but that's just my opinion.

And yes, though I am an optimist by nature, I do think the risk of utter disaster in this 4T is rather high. I don't like that, but that's the way I see it.

Are we in 3T or 4T? Consider this:

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20011021-60684404.htm




This kind of reminds me of some of the oddball stunts that were performed in the '20s, stuff like balancing on top of skyscrapers or mass dancing marathons.

http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/p...naus01001.html

As far as youthful CEOs go, prominent CEOs today tend to be younger because many of them head companies they founded. If you look at earlier entreprenarial periods you see similar youth.

Edison founded his Menlo Park laboratory at 29 and the precursor to GE at 35. Ransom Olds founded the first US auto company at 32. Henry Ford helped establish Cadillac at 38 and his own Ford Motor Company at 40. David Sarnoff became VP of RCA at 28, President of NBC at 35 and CEO of RCA at 39. Elbridge Johnson founded Victor at 34. Crosley was a millionare CEO of the first successful home radio company at age 35. Galvin started Motorola at 39. George Westinghouse founded Westinghouse Airbrake at 23 and Akio Morita co-founded Sony at 25.

Political leaders seem to be about the same age as they always have been.

Besides, young CEOs like Bill Gates correspond to the Nomad mid-life manager role, not the elder visionary leadership role. If Bill steps down to run some important national program (as CEOs during the Depression and WW II did) *then* he will be moving into a visionary leadership role. But as a father with young children I can't see someone at his age being ready to do this.

Those CEOs who do volunteer for visionary leadership service will likely be older, close to retirement age and have grown children. Right now that means mostly Silents.

On 2001-10-21 12:01, Lis '54 wrote:
I think this is only the beginning. By the time 2020 gets here, I figure the entire Muslim world will have gone up in flames one way or the other, and either we'll be in a
position to help rebuild those lands as civilized, prosperous democracies afterwards or we'll be, for all intents and purposes, gone.

I can actually think of several other at least somewhat possible outcomes, some more desirable, some far, far worse than that.

I like to read all these good comments. First, in response to Mike A.: I focused only on the latest saeculum merely in response to the discussion of a "short" saeculum of 76 years. I had not noticed, and am glad you mentioned, the fact that even in the Civil War anomaly (i.e. in 1860), the youngest Artists were 10 years older than are the youngest Silents today. I think this is a significant thing to mention.

My real point of contention is not that the 4T needs to wait 10 years or so, to fit the historical pattern, but that if reactions, counterreactions, and just plain bad luck conspire to create an undeniable Crisis era, and it happens in the next couple of years, that this is not an impossibility in the S&H model. This would simply be an earlier Crisis than even the Civil War crisis, but not so early as to say that the constellation of generational archetypes did not play a significant part in shaping it.

And that is my point. The generations are far enough along into the phases of life to influence history. They are decidedly not as far along as needed to shape history in the clearcut "ideal" S&H template, but they are far along enough to shape new generations, and to be stamped as generations in their own right by pending events. The Millennials need not end up a classic Hero generation, but could be a version of the Hero/Artist Gilded, and an archetype could drop out, with the next-born generation being the New Prophets. This is how the turnings/generations timetable would get "back on track". There is no rule that says 58-to-76-year-old Silents cannot be faced with a Crisis era catalyst, one that actually turns into the start of a Crisis era.

So, I think much is possible at this advanced state of the present generations occupying phases of life, even though the phases have a ways to go before complete occupation, and though the shorter Silent and Boomer generations (each 18 years) skews the ideal mathematical alignment.

With that said, I will say that the S&H model should indicate that the 3T will last several more years. I don't know that _Generations_ pointed to 2013 as the year. That would make for quite a long 3T, especially since in that book they started the 3T in 1981. As others have noted here, S&H pointed to the 2004-2025 time frame as a likely 4T era, with the first years being the mood shift, and the large history-bending events taking place around 2020.

The question today as to 3T/4T centers on whether the mood shift is occurring. For, despite U.S. activity in Afghanistan and all the accompanying big talk, I have come to believe that there will not be a direct consequential chain of world events in the next few years leading to the cataclysmic Crisis war, as far as United States society is concerned. I think that the impact to the U.S. will be to say goodbye to the 3T, and acknowledge (albeit not by name) the start of the 4T. We need time to effectuate this transition. The hunker-down mindset is not here yet, we only have indications of it. But I have seen enough to believe that we have entered the 4T, and thus that it has started early. Again: I hope that the 4T era will last longer than other 4T eras (16 years last time, 6 years before that, don't have my notes handy for ones before that). And that's another point: a nice 25-year Crisis period would get generations back on track, but are such long 4T eras healthy for the country? That's a lot of gloom, despair, and big events. Or will it be a long but mild winter, as we sort out our domestic and global problems in one battle after another, without the "big bang" 4T finale? Will this be, in effect, a "different sort of winter"?

So, I've veered a bit into rambling, but let me finish up for now by restating my belief that whatever happens now, the generations are far enough along to shape it. How they shape it will affect new generations starting with the Millennials, and may refix the ending Gen X boundary.

Lastly, I think that in 10 years' time, we will not be looking back at the big events of our time, but that we will still be on their verge.


_________________
- Rich Tauchar (1960 cohort)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: richt on 2001-10-21 20:47 ]</font>

Marc, if I understand you correctly you are saying President Bush is equivalent to Harding. And that post-911 response is a massive refutation of an empowered liberal mindset. I think you are forgetting Ronald Reagan.

How can you call the 1990's a period of empowered liberal mindset and ignore the 1970's? Look at the issues that conservatives complain about. The #1 conservative issue, abortion, arose because of the liberal Row v Wade decision in 1973. Since then abortion has become increasingly restricted and the Supreme Court increasingly hostile to it. Affirmative action was introduced in the 1970's, upheld in the Bakke case in 1978 and has since been largely rolled back. The top tax rate was 70% in the 1970's, it is 36% today. Budget deficits were considered out of control in the late 1970's and producing massive inflation. Today the budget is balanced and inflation is well under control.

As you know I track these changes and have documented an increasingly empowered *conservative* mindset since around 1980. The liberal worldview has been in decline. The same analysis shows a *rise* in liberal mindset in the 1900's and 1910's, which peaked around 1916 (right about when you peg it). The Palmer Raids can be considered a reaction against this liberal mindset and the "Return to Normalcy" of President Harding an endorsement of this reaction.

I submit that reaction to the Iranian hostage crisis was the turning point against the rising liberal mindset of the 1970's and the President who "returned us to normalcy" was Ronald Reagan. So I would say Harding = Reagan as far as the shift goes.

I further say that *both* these shifts, 1920 and 1980, were detected by the stock market and inaugurated spectacular bull markets in 1921-29 and 1982-2000. Your analysis completely ignores the stock market, which last year set a 25+ year constant-dollar high, just like it did in 1929. You will likely be in your 70's before the NASDAQ surpasses 5000 again in 2000 dollars.

This post has nothing to do with my prior post. I watched the "Concert for New York City" last night on VH1. Hilary Clinton, whom New York City dwellers recently greatly preferred over Rudy Giuliani, was roundly booed. I actually felt sorry for her, and wished there had been no booing. Bill Clinton was booed, albeit not as badly. I felt bad for him, too. I agreed with the things he was saying, but he just didn't belong on stage talking about bravery. For the first time ever, I wanted to be kind to Bill and Hilary -- no one should be booed like that. (Giuliani, on the other hand, was cheered loudly.)

The part I couldn't figure out was who was doing the booing. This was the celebrity elite, lots of Hollywood liberals around, as well as famous musical British Boomers doing telling us about New York City. Could it be that they were booing, or was it the good people of New York who recently voted in Hilary, or was it a loud and vocal police and firefighter contingent doing the booing? I would have to assume the latter, but nor did I hear any cheers.

Inasmuch as the Clintons = 3T, is this an indication that we are shifting our mood to the 4T?

(I felt less concerned last night that Hilary will be president after Bush, but that's still a long way off, and she's not going to let a little booing get in her way.)

Also, Mr. Tibetan Buddhist Richard Gere was roundly booed as well after prescribing "compassion and understanding" as our response. Sure, we understand. That's why we're bombing the Taliban.

Big cheers were garnered by the policeman who told Bin Laden to kiss his "royal Irish ass", and then told him where he lives, said "this is my face -- bitch!". So, that was a combination of 3T profanity being allowed on TV, together with 4T angry resolve.

The weakest moments of the concert, by the way, were attempts at 3T-style humor -- an impersonation of Bush, for example. It wasn't "4T-reverent".

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: richt on 2001-10-21 21:02 ]</font>

On 2001-10-21 21:01, richt wrote:
This post has nothing to do with my prior post. I watched the "Concert for New York City" last night on VH1. Hilary Clinton, whom New York City dwellers recently greatly preferred over Rudy Giuliani, was roundly booed. I actually felt sorry for her, and wished there had been no booing. Bill Clinton was booed, albeit not as badly. I felt bad for him, too. I agreed with the things he was saying, but he just didn't belong on stage talking about bravery. For the first time ever, I wanted to be kind to Bill and Hilary -- no one should be booed like that. (Giuliani, on the other hand, was cheered loudly.)

The part I couldn't figure out was who was doing the booing. This was the celebrity elite, lots of Hollywood liberals around, as well as famous musical British Boomers doing telling us about New York City. Could it be that they were booing, or was it the good people of New York who recently voted in Hilary, or was it a loud and vocal police and firefighter contingent doing the booing? I would have to assume the latter, but nor did I hear any cheers.

Inasmuch as the Clintons = 3T, is this an indication that we are shifting our mood to the 4T?

(I felt less concerned last night that Hilary will be president after Bush, but that's still a long way off, and she's not going to let a little booing get in her way.)

Things like this have happened occasionally before, right through the Clinton years of the 3T, and it just didn't usually get any press coverage. Neither Clinton was ever as popular as the portrayals of the national media would have led one to believe.

[Mike] Marc, if I understand you correctly you are saying President Bush is equivalent to Harding.

[Marc] I am looking directly at the pre and post-WWI era that reflect a resounding rejection of many of the 'new' values, mindsets (Marx, rejection of patriotism etc...) just before the 'new' idealist generation peaked in 1923. Harding has notning, at this time to do with anything.

[Mike] And that post-911 response is a massive refutation of an empowered liberal mindset. I think you are forgetting Ronald Reagan.

[Marc] As a Reagan conservative, I can say that I thought we hade convinced the country in 1988 when GW carried the Reagan flag (wrong), or when we took over Congress in 1994 (wrong), or when Clinton was impeached (wrong). I believe what we, conservatives have always longed for occured on 9/11/2001.

[Mike] How can you call the 1990's a period of empowered liberal mindset and ignore the 1970's?

[Marc] I'm not. Liberalism was 'born-again' in the ashes of 1968-72. It then was instituionalized, growing, and eptomized by WJC and Hillary in 1992. Remember that Schlesinger thought, with his cycles, that 1992 was the year for a 'new'liberal era. S&H laughed. Now, post-Clinton, 'new' age liberalism lies in ashes, just like it did post-Red Scare in 1920.

[Mike] Look at the issues that conservatives complain about. The #1 conservative issue, abortion, arose because of the liberal Row v Wade decision in 1973. Since then abortion has become increasingly restricted and the Supreme Court increasingly hostile to it. Affirmative action was introduced in the 1970's, upheld in the Bakke case in 1978 and has since been largely rolled back. The top tax rate was 70% in the 1970's, it is 36% today. Budget deficits were considered out of control in the late 1970's and producing massive inflation. Today the budget is balanced and inflation is well under control.

[Marc] Good points all. But this is a 36 (yours) or a forty (mine) year war. Either 1968 or 1974 was the dividing line. We can do the math from there.

[Mike] As you know I track these changes and have documented an increasingly empowered *conservative* mindset since around 1980. The liberal worldview has been in decline.

[Marc] Here is a critical error that you make, Mike. It is the old 'liberal worldview' that has been declining. The FDR 'entitlement' liberalism. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the 'new' Clinton liberalism.

[Mike] The same analysis shows a *rise* in liberal mindset in the 1900's and 1910's, which peaked around 1916 (right about when you peg it).

[Marc] Right. The 'new' liberalism that would be embraced in 1932.

[Mike] The Palmer Raids can be considered a reaction against this liberal mindset and the "Return to Normalcy" of President Harding an endorsement of this reaction.

[Marc] Correct.

[Mike] I submit that reaction to the Iranian hostage crisis was the turning point against the rising liberal mindset of the 1970's and the President who "returned us to normalcy" was Ronald Reagan. So I would say Harding = Reagan as far as the shift goes.

[Marc] Nah, Reagan was Roosevelt I. Kinda. The are many differences due to the different worlds, and paradigms between the two eras. Suffice to say, both Roosevelt I and Reagan served as a means of establishing an 'equinox' of sorts (Autumnal) in America that had been been shattered by Awakenings.

[Mike] I further say that *both* these shifts, 1920 and 1980, were detected by the stock market and inaugurated spectacular bull markets in 1921-29 and 1982-2000. Your analysis completely ignores the stock market, which last year set a 25+ year constant-dollar high, just like it did in 1929. You will likely be in your 70's before the NASDAQ surpasses 5000 again in 2000 dollars.

[Marc] I'm 'hedging' my bet that 'your analysis' is off somewhere, with all due respect. Each day, I am becoming more and more convince that old Harry Dent maybe on to something rich.

Albeit, a little too far on the optimistic side. :smile:

I should have phrased that better, Lis. What I meant was, these are either intentionally non-lethal weapons, or akin to such. A lot of R&D has gone into so-called 'nonlethals' over the last few years, with limited success.

My question was: would a Prophet generation in 4T be pleased with such weapons, or would they by intellection or instinct prefer the deadliest, most 'final' personal weapons available?

In science-fiction terms, put it this way: would a Gray Champion want the phasers set on stun or kill?

Ah, I see. It would depend on the target, whether the person or group was judged as deserving of death or not.

It appears to be that you see T. Roosevelt as the beginning of a 35-40 year conservative trend like you see Reagan.

TR was *not* the start of a 30-40 year conservative trend that ended in 1932. The trend in the late 19th century was towards greater cosnervatism. There was tons of labor violence in the 1880's and 1890's that was all beaten back by the authorities without giving in to the unions. The Pullman and Homestead strikes broke the back of the socialist labor movement just as the 1919 actions did a quarter of a century later. In 1894, there was Coxley's march of the unemployed on Washngton, analogous to the Bonus Army in 1933. But the conservative government of the 1890's did nothing in response, compared to the liberal government of the 1930's. In the critical election of 1896 (analogous to 1932) the conservatives won.

Despite the decisive defeat of the leftists in 1896, the Progressive Era liberal shift was inaugurated by TR in 1901. In other words the victory of the Conservatives failed to produce the outcome that they wished and "creeping socialism" was introduced with a number of hateful (to conservatives) bill. Besides the anti-free market "trustbusting", there was the establishment of the regulatory state with the FDA and other bodies. Not only that, but direct taxes (forbidden by the consitution) were inaugurated by the 1913 income tax amendment.

In contrast the 1919 era was followed by the conservative retrenchment that began with Harding's return to normalcy. Harding was followed by two more conservatives, not the liberals that followed McKinley.

You may not feel that the Reagan revolution got far enough. Neither did the return to normalcy. Harding lowered income taxes (but was unable to get rid of them). So did Reagan. A serious attempt to get rid of intrusive child labor laws failed as well. Reagan and his followers were more successful with instrusive affirmative action laws. Women's suffrage was not going to be rolled back (I don't think they even tried). Likewise, civil rights was here to stay, no attempt was made to roll this back either. Much of the regulatory state put in by the Progressives could not be dislodged by the 1920's conservative movement. Most of the environmental regulation of the 1970's remain intact after the 1980's and 1990's conservative movement.

Nonetheless the drift towards liberalism in public policy was halted during both the 1920's and 1980-90's. The *mood* continued to move toward liberalism during *both* periods as shown by greater racial tolerance (elimination of lynchings in the 1920's and the dissappearance of overt racist language caused by the "PC" environment in the late 1980's and early 1990's)

In the final analysis, the Harding conservatives managed to do enough to stimulate a bull market, as did the Reagan conservatives. In constrast the market began a 15 year bear in the second year of TR's first full term.

Marc, that was a beautiful report from Drudge. However if you are reading this "booing" of Hillary by all-American guys such as cops and firemen as a new development, then you are mistaken. I am certain that you have been booing Hillary on your television screen all these years and so have I. So have those cops and firemen. So has virtually every American who values his freedom and/or our traditional culture, and you know this from your everyday experience. Anyone as abrasive and ruthless about imposing his/her arbitrary will as Hillary is going to elicit this reaction at any point in the saeculum in the same way that a Taliban leader would. The day it does not happen is the day that America is dead. Either you love Hillary or you hate her; there is no in-between. And the fact is that Hillary has been regularly and roundly booed since she first appeared on the national scene a decade ago. Of course this may not be at all obvious since the media has gone to great lengths to hide it.

Incidentally, this highlights the flaw I see in your earlier argument. "First in his class William Jefferson Clinton" is not the anointed one. However Hillary is. Bill was just an opportunist who would morph into a libertarian or conservative on a dime if the votes went that way, excepting for paying heed to his masters on the "free" trade agenda. This is after all what a New Democrat is and the Bill Bradley and Ralph Nader defections did not occur without just cause. But Hillary is the real deal. She, not Bill, represents the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the anointed crust of that generation. So just as in the 1850s, your "critical issue" has not been "resolved" yet. Get ready for 2004.

America's elites must come to the aid of their country writes Mr. John Leo in the 5 Mar-Cheshvan 5762 number of the Jewish World Review.

In the Crisis, the elites will turn even their priorities to defense. Are they yet turning? HTH

On 2001-10-21 20:43, richt wrote:

My real point of contention is not that the 4T needs to wait 10 years or so, to fit the historical pattern, but that if reactions, counterreactions, and just plain bad luck conspire to create an undeniable Crisis era, and it happens in the next couple of years, that this is not an impossibility in the S&H model. This would simply be an earlier Crisis than even the Civil War crisis, but not so early as to say that the constellation of generational archetypes did not play a significant part in shaping it.

And that is my point. The generations are far enough along into the phases of life to influence history. They are decidedly not as far along as needed to shape history in the clearcut "ideal" S&H template, but they are far along enough to shape new generations, and to be stamped as generations in their own right by pending events. The Millennials need not end up a classic Hero generation, but could be a version of the Hero/Artist Gilded, and an archetype could drop out, with the next-born generation being the New Prophets. This is how the turnings/generations timetable would get "back on track". There is no rule that says 58-to-76-year-old Silents cannot be faced with a Crisis era catalyst, one that actually turns into the start of a Crisis era.

So, I think much is possible at this advanced state of the present generations occupying phases of life, even though the phases have a ways to go before complete occupation, and though the shorter Silent and Boomer generations (each 18 years) skews the ideal mathematical alignment.

richt:

Great points, I think the 4T is quite clear. But like you said:

(1) It is early, and

(2) that doesn't necessarily mess everything up.

If it had happened, say, 10 or even 5 years ago, I would've predicted much more trouble. But we're close enough to the 2004 date that I think we're lining up as needed. Gen X, which would've been a long generation if the Crisis came in 2012, will be foreshortened. The first-wave Millies are probably more cynical and negtive than most first-wave Heroes, but not enough that they won't fight. Plus, (hopefully) there won't be the homefront catastrophe of the Civil War.

Additionally, the Crisis will most likely last a long time. The phrase I'll misquote here is "a long, mild winter". The only thing you said that I disagree with is the notion that the Millies won't end up the classic Hero generation. I think they will have plenty of time to end up as typical heroes.

Oddly enough, one scenario that could make things turn out badly would be a quick solution to the problem. A quick solution would be inconclusive, more like WWI than WWII. But I think with the current unwavering emphasis on winning, and the strong push for war both by Bush and by the Islamists, we'll be engaged for quite some time, plenty long enough for the generations to mature into their new roles.

In retrospect, imagine how horrible things might have gone if the first attempt to topple the WTC had succeeded in 1993 (?), and instead of 6 dead we had 5,000 dead. From the historical perspective, we got really lucky.

[Mike] It appears to be that you see T. Roosevelt as the beginning of a 35-40 year conservative trend like you see Reagan.

[Marc] No. The '35-40[plus] year [new]conservative trend' began as the Lost generation [old conservative trend]began to fade into the sunset. This was sometime around 1968-74 as evidenced by the government (or old 'paradigm,' 'covenant,' 'compact,' 'New Deal')'trust factor' was severely damaged.
[Mike] TR was *not* the start of a 30-40 year conservative trend that ended in 1932. The trend in the late 19th century was towards greater cosnervatism. There was tons of labor violence in the 1880's and 1890's that was all beaten back by the authorities without giving in to the unions.

[Marc] Right. It probably happened some eighty years previous to the 1968-74 period.

[Mike] The Pullman and Homestead strikes broke the back of the socialist labor movement just as the 1919 actions did a quarter of a century later. In 1894, there was Coxley's march of the unemployed on Washngton, analogous to the Bonus Army in 1933.

[Marc] Here again, we run into that Civil War anomaly which has a way of distorting the analogy to the rioting et al that occurred in 1968. In '68, you had the GI union guys wanting to 'beat some heads' of hippie kids led by the Silents like Tom Hayden and the Weathermen (pure anarchists).

One needs to step back and see the bigger issue at hand in both eras: A generational shift that weakened old institutions, previous held paradigms etc. TR and Reagan did not 'fix' the 'weakened' state. They merely restored equalibrium so that that whole thing didn't collapse right then and there. Hence you have Autumn, a 'progressive' conservatism amid a 'ballyhoo' culture. :smile:

[Mike] But the conservative government of the 1890's did nothing in response, compared to the liberal government of the 1930's. In the critical election of 1896 (analogous to 1932) the conservatives won.

Despite the decisive defeat of the leftists in 1896, the Progressive Era liberal shift was inaugurated by TR in 1901.

[Marc] Reagan was a 'Keynesian' in reverse. Tax cuts (rather than increases) 'stimulate' the economy. But government spending stimulates it as well. Reagan DID NOT REJECT THE NEW DEAL, HE EMBRACED IT.

[Mike] In other words the victory of the Conservatives failed to produce the outcome that they wished and "creeping socialism" was introduced with a number of hateful (to conservatives) bill.

[Marc] Again, they did not reject the old "creeping socialism" based upon the old paradigm established BEFORE (the Manchester School of Economics) and after the Civil War. But they were not embracing Marx in any way, shape, matter, or form in 1901. Hell, TR was totally at the mercy of Morgan in this period (though he did carry a big stick :smile: ).

[Mike] Besides the anti-free market "trustbusting", there was the establishment of the regulatory state with the FDA and other bodies. Not only that, but direct taxes (forbidden by the consitution) were inaugurated by the 1913 income tax amendment.

[Marc] All chump change, and with very little authority until 1933.

[Mike] In contrast the 1919 era was followed by the conservative retrenchment that began with Harding's return to normalcy. Harding was followed by two more conservatives, not the liberals that followed McKinley.

[Marc] 'retrenchment' is an interesting word to use. But the more important issue is that all these 'Missionary' conservatives were progressive of an old paradigm based upon the Manchester School. Hoover was less so, but he really didn't get a grip until it was too late.

As an aside, it was the Supreme Court that carried on the conservative torch to balance the new dealin' in the mid '30s.

[Mike] You may not feel that the Reagan revolution got far enough.

[Marc] Well, top-rate taxes came crashing down, the Soviet Union came crashing down, an Saddam should have came crashing down. But a funny thing happened on the way to Baghdad: New Age liberalism took over. And William Jefferson Clinton (or Hillary, I guess) took a 'kinder, gentler' George Herbert Walker Bush to the cleaners.

[Mike] Neither did the return to normalcy. Harding lowered income taxes (but was unable to get rid of them). So did Reagan. A serious attempt to get rid of intrusive child labor laws failed as well. Reagan and his followers were more successful with instrusive affirmative action laws. Women's suffrage was not going to be rolled back (I don't think they even tried). Likewise, civil rights was here to stay, no attempt was made to roll this back either. Much of the regulatory state put in by the Progressives could not be dislodged by the 1920's conservative movement. Most of the environmental regulation of the 1970's remain intact after the 1980's and 1990's conservative movement.

[Marc] Again, while everything you write here is true, Mike, your 're not seeing the falling 'old' deal and rising 'new' deal, nor the relationship that conservatives have with liberals. There are fours waves going on here, each generational, each pushing up or down according to the free market electorial will of the people.

[Mike] Nonetheless the drift towards liberalism in public policy was halted during both the 1920's and 1980-90's.

[Marc] Right here is the heart of the matter of what your research shows you, Mike, and what the cycles suggests actually happens. But you introduce an 'anomaly' here: '1920's'= nine years, with 1980-90's= twentysome years.

You're not seeing something (with your trend, or event data) that I am seeing (with my analysis of the cycles). :smile:

[Mike] The *mood* continued to move toward liberalism during *both* periods as shown by greater racial tolerance (elimination of lynchings in the 1920's...

[Marc] Correction here. While the KKK was discredited in the mid '20s via scandal, lycnhings continued till after WWII.

[Mike] ... and the dissappearance of overt racist language caused by the "PC" environment in the late 1980's and early 1990's)

[Marc] I'm not sure what you're meaning to imply here as to the 'cycle.'

[Mike] In the final analysis, the Harding conservatives managed to do enough to stimulate a bull market, as did the Reagan conservatives. In constrast the market began a 15 year bear in the second year of TR's first full term.

[Marc] In October of 1929, the CRASH was hardly 'felt' by anyone outside of Wall Street. The Columbus Dispatch barely noticed it on page one. That would hardly be the case today because of the New Deal :smile:. So the two eras begun in the wake of TR and Reagan are not analogous in the same way here.

To see the bigger picture is to see that the 'big stick' TR and the 'tough talkin' Reagan restored America to a point of equilibrium and enabled that country to move into Autumn.

I wrote, "In October of 1929, the CRASH was hardly 'felt' by anyone outside of Wall Street. The Columbus Dispatch barely noticed it on page one. That would hardly be the case today because of the New Deal . So the two eras begun in the wake of TR and Reagan are not analogous in the same way here."

A few more thoughts along these analogous lines:

1) The American farmer was hurting bad all through the great boom of the late twenties. And that would continue until the late '30s. To be analogous to today that would make the '20s seem more like the late '70s, early eighties. Not today. Same with the stock market, only in the reverse.

2) I can hardly think that immediately after the CRASH of '29, the 'trigger', we would have seen a spike in the 'government trust factor' like we have seen today. It would have been a mor e gradual thing culminating in an election like 1936 wherein things had gotten even worse since 1932, but the people decided they were going to go with the New Deal anyway.

3) On the other hand, the Palmer raids WERE completely supported by the country out of FEAR of the reds, and other anarchists. Unlike the the very unbullish (helpless government daze) when Morgan virtually held the economy in the palm of his, and other Industrialists, hands in the late '90s, early 20th century.