I might understand what you are saying. I?ll try to describe it.

There is a conservative paradigm that is roughly aligned with Nomad generations. Between the end of the old and the beginning of a new there is the Awakening which produces a new set of issues about which a new paradigm is constructed. These periods show up as liberal period in my graph. There is also a ?mid-course? correction liberal period in each paradigm.

I will use critical elections to outline this process. We start with the 1896 critical election, in which a conservative (McKinley) was elected, yet a liberal period followed (the Progressive era 1896-1916 on my chart). This period is analogous to 1968 when a conservative (Nixon) was elected yet was followed by a liberal period (1963-1980 on my chart). Both these dates serve as rough estimates for the start of a new conservative paradigm reflecting the passing of the old Nomads and the beginning of a new. The 1896 election foreshadowed the ending of the Gilded paradigm (avg age 64), while the 1968 one foreshadowed the ending of the Lost paradigm (avg age 76).

The liberal phase around critical election produces new ideas, some of which will be incorporated into the developing conservative paradigm during the mid-course correction period, and some of which will be rejected. The Progressive era saw some a variety of new movements at the Federal level. It also saw the rise of Socialist and Communist-linked labor movements (e.g. Wobblies, Communist Party USA). The latter were rejected forcibly in the 1919 hysteria as you point out. They were replaced in the 1930?s by growing trade unionism (AFL, CIO) that were more compatible with capitalism. Some Progressive ideas were ratified/institutionalized in the 1930?s (e.g. government regulation, income tax, labor laws) while others were not (segregation laws, Prohibition). The new conservative paradigm reached full bloom in the postwar high, and continued to ?work? until 1973.

By this time we were in a new ?values-forming? liberal period. Of the ideas that this period generates, one might expect some, like civil rights and environmentalism will survive the mid-course correction. Others like affirmative action and ?PC? will die out, like segregation laws and Prohibition did the last time. You see a similarity between 1919 and 2001 as a reaction against something. I can see 1919 as a reaction against the Red menace. But what is 2001 a reaction against?

Terrorism of course, but terrorism isn?t one of the 1960?s liberal issues to be accepted or rejected by the developing conservative paradigm. Which issues from then do you have in mind?

Do I have this right? You might have something here?I need to cogitate on it and see if I can make it work farther back.

Also on a side note. You must be careful equating real time with cycle time. They are not the same. This becomes abundantly clear when you do cycle work going back 100?s of years. For example using the critical election cycle 1896=1968. But your TR=Reagan has 1901=1981. Five years morphs into 13. (This sort of thing happens all the time). Watergate can explain the long time between Nixon and Reagan, whereas TR was McKinley?s VP and McKinley was assassinated. Similarly your 1919=2001 does not imply that 1932=2014. We could see 2006=1932, in which case we have 13 years morphing into 5. [In the absence of 911 we might retrospectively assign 1994=1919, depending on when the 1932-like critical takes place.] Then if we apply critical election cycles this is consistent with 2004 as a critical election, and the beginning of the social moment, giving 2001 as the start of the Crisis.

We have to be careful with cycle projections since much of what you ?see? in the past cycles depends so much on hindsight, which we don?t have now. This is why I make so much use of real-time indicators like the stock market and reduced prices. My Kondratiev/stock cycle view has Mar 2000 = Sep 1929 and Sep 2001 = Nov 1929. In other words the next 1932 can still easily be in 2004 or 2008.

Have you seen my gold-eagle article on Dent? If you do his same type of analysis properly you get the end of the bull market in 2000, not 2007.

The Marc and Mike show continues...



[Mike] There is a conservative paradigm that is roughly aligned with Nomad generations. Between the end of the old and the beginning of a new there is the Awakening which produces a new set of issues about which a new paradigm is constructed. These periods show up as liberal period in my graph. There is also a ?mid-course? correction liberal period in each paradigm.

[Marc] Kinda, but one has to remember that Adaptive and Nomadic generations are 'recessive' in nature. Which is to say they are 'cultural,' and that is their elder endowment.

Remember the post that so well illustrated this?
Quote:
"The Adaptives' sense of commonality acts as their alienation. The Reactives' sense of alienation acts as their commonality.

Somehow knowing that most of my generation were so detached from everything brought me the comfort of knowing I wasn't alone."

Hence the Nomadic 'conservative paradigm' that gives way to the 'new' in 1896?, 1968-74? is mainly 'cultural' in nature that is a servant of post-fourth turning liberaliam (Micheal Lind's National Liberalism).

[Mike] I will use critical elections to outline this process. We start with the 1896 critical election, in which a conservative (McKinley) was elected, yet a liberal period followed (the Progressive era 1896-1916 on my chart). This period is analogous to 1968 when a conservative (Nixon) was elected yet was followed by a liberal period (1963-1980 on my chart). Both these dates serve as rough estimates for the start of a new conservative paradigm reflecting the passing of the old Nomads and the beginning of a new. The 1896 election foreshadowed the ending of the Gilded paradigm (avg age 64), while the 1968 one foreshadowed the ending of the Lost paradigm (avg age 76).

[Marc] First, we must 'be careful equating real time with cycle time.' So let's look at the generational peaks (according to S&H):

1881 Gilded gen (Nomad) peak in Spring @ 79%
1899 Progress (Civic/Artist hybrid) peak: Summer @ 64%

In 1886, huge labor strife broke out in the midwest. Suddenly, out of nowhere, Das Capital, seemingly forgotten since 1848, is translated to english and a 'new liberalism' is embraced by a small elite of a post-Civil War generation (like 21 year old Lincoln Steffans). I believe it is 1886 that is analogous to 1968. 1896 is analogous (in the sense that the Gilded Age was finished) to 1974 (in the sense that the GI 'hubris' was finished).

[Mike] The liberal phase around critical election produces new ideas, some of which will be incorporated into the developing conservative paradigm during the mid-course correction period, and some of which will be rejected.

[Marc] Urban (post-gilded, like the '70s imho) America, near the close of the last century was a mess. And America was in a mid-Awakening blah. Hence comes a 'splendid little war' with Spain. Unlike Vietnam, this war works to propel Roosevelt I into a post-Custer/Wounded Knee heroic role, then into the White House. Rebuilding a now 'modern navy', taking on the incredible task of the Panama Canal et al, and suddenly 'America was back!' As Lee Iaacoca would say, nearly eighty years later, 'He [Roosevelt III :smile:]made patriotism fashionable again.'

[Mike] The Progressive era saw some a variety of new movements at the Federal level. It also saw the rise of Socialist and Communist-linked labor movements (e.g. Wobblies, Communist Party USA). The latter were rejected forcibly in the 1919 hysteria as you point out. They were replaced in the 1930?s by growing trade unionism (AFL, CIO) that were more compatible with capitalism. Some Progressive ideas were ratified/institutionalized in the 1930?s (e.g. government regulation, income tax, labor laws) while others were not (segregation laws, Prohibition).

[Marc] Correct!

[Mike] The new conservative paradigm reached full bloom in the postwar high, and continued to ?work? until 1973.

[Marc] When the GI generation peaked in 1965, this 'paradigm' was ripe for the pickings by a 'cultural' generation that had been suffocated for nearly forty years. By 1970, many of this generation had had it with being pushed around, told what to do and how to behave. Vietnam, along with a generation that had no idea what the despression was like, combined for a painful mix to GI hubris.

[Mike] By this time we were in a new ?values-forming? liberal period. Of the ideas that this period generates, one might expect some, like civil rights and environmentalism will survive the mid-course correction.
Others like affirmative action and ?PC? will die out, like segregation laws and Prohibition did the last time.
[Marc] Yes.

[Mike] You see a similarity between 1919 and 2001 as a reaction against something. I can see 1919 as a reaction against the Red menace. But what is 2001 a reaction against?

[Marc] First, a new generation [Xers] is both introduced to a rebirth of post-Reagan patriotism :smile:. But it will not sustain :cry:, it will not satisfy for the destruction that occurred on 9/11. Nothing can. It is the utlimate disappointment :cry:. We can't bring those folks back... and we aren't ready :cry: for a new paradigm to formulate. We, Boomers, haven't even peaked yet :cry:.

I'll continue later.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2001-10-22 20:44 ]</font>

I just wrote, "When the GI generation peaked in 1965, this 'paradigm' was ripe for the pickings by a 'cultural' generation that had been suffocated for nearly forty years. By 1970, many of this generation had had it with being pushed around, told what to do and how to behave. Vietnam, along with a generation that had no idea what the despression was like, combined for a painful mix to GI hubris."

I came across this post recently. It puts into words beyond what I could ever comment on:

Lancer
Joined: Oct 03, 2001
Posts: 3 Posted: 2001-10-03 17:36
---------------------------------------------
I am of the "Silent Generation." Born in
1938 ~ 75 years after the battle of Gettysburg and nearly a year and a half before the beginning of World War II.
When I was a child; ages 3 to 7, The 2nd World War rubbed its impact upon me. I remember the call coming into our home telling about my cousin, Jimmy being killed
in action in September, 1944.
At the age of 12, I watched soldiers go off
to Korea and fight in a stalemate.
In the 1950s, we watched spuknik travel over
our heads, wondered if WW3 would break out
in November, 1956 while I studied every aspect of Russian history which was quite popular in college. All the time, I followed
the rules.
I looked up to the heroes of WW2. I enlisted
in the USNR after college and served aboard
the USS Intrepid when Ltjg McCain was aboard.
We felt the end of the world was near in October, 1962.
And as a civilian in the 1960s, said it's about time we went into Vietnam and fought.
Though by 1970, I knew we were on the wrong
battlefield when fighting the puppets of
the Soviet Union.
Experienced the great freedoms of the 1970s
and was enchanted by the return of a
different generation coming to power in 1980
when everyone thought that people of Reagan's
era were ready to retire. His optimism and
spirit was a significant moment in American
history.
Desert Storm and Clinton are now in the
the past and now we are definitely in a
major turning point in American history.


I could not put it any better than that. More later...

Continuing my earlier post... :smile:

[Mike] You see a similarity between 1919 and 2001 as a reaction against something. I can see 1919 as a reaction against the Red menace. But what is 2001 a reaction against?

[Marc] Second, it is an important step in finally putting the lid on the era that was 1968-74, and the 'generational attitudes' that made that time what it was. Hence the spike in the 'trust' factor. What came out of this time was a loss of 'cultural shame' as individualism trumped the needs of the 'greater good.' This '50s-style conservatism wherein to 'sue' your neighbor was akin to screw your neighbor, and was not tolerated as a society. Only problem is, we ain't ready to fix that yet, coz it is generational in nature.

Third, I'll let Jeff Jacoby speak for me, "It's an old, old story. Lincoln Steffens, one of the best-known journalists of his day, went to the Soviet Union in 1919 -- when the Red Terror was butchering people by the tens of thousands -- and reported: "I have seen the future, and it works!" He was the first in a long line of journalists to whitewash the crimes of communist tyrants and minimize the anguish of their victims."

Yet, check out this interesting website:
I Have seen the Future and IT Works!

[Mike] Also on a side note. You must be careful equating real time with cycle time. They are not the same. This becomes abundantly clear when you do cycle work going back 100?s of years. For example using the critical election cycle 1896=1968. But your TR=Reagan has 1901=1981. Five years morphs into 13. (This sort of thing happens all the time). Watergate can explain the long time between Nixon and Reagan, whereas TR was McKinley?s VP and McKinley was assassinated. Similarly your 1919=2001 does not imply that 1932=2014. We could see 2006=1932, in which case we have 13 years morphing into 5. [In the absence of 911 we might retrospectively assign 1994=1919, depending on when the 1932-like critical takes place.] Then if we apply critical election cycles this is consistent with 2004 as a critical election, and the beginning of the social moment, giving 2001 as the start of the Crisis.

We have to be careful with cycle projections since much of what you ?see? in the past cycles depends so much on hindsight, which we don?t have now. This is why I make so much use of real-time indicators like the stock market and reduced prices. My Kondratiev/stock cycle view has Mar 2000 = Sep 1929 and Sep 2001 = Nov 1929. In other words the next 1932 can still easily be in 2004 or 2008.

[Marc] I could not agree more. While I may not fully understand Mr. Kondratiev's theories (and he has been butchered (misinterpeted) by many since the '70s) Still, I respect even the Mathusian aspects of materialistic thought. But, (imho) it is but, one half the equation though. The other half, of course, being that 'Life is more than bread alone.'

[Mike] Have you seen my gold-eagle article on Dent? If you do his same type of analysis properly you get the end of the bull market in 2000, not 2007.

[Marc] Is this new? Since last spring?

[Marc] First, we must 'be careful equating real time with cycle time.' So let's look at the generational peaks (according to S&H):

1881 Gilded gen (Nomad) peak in Spring @ 79%
1899 Progress (Civic/Artist hybrid) peak: Summer @ 64%


[Mike:] Here I have a problem. You relate 1968 to the fading of the Lost (at age 76 they would be fading) but in the equivalent year 1886 the Gilded were 54, hardly fading. And here you use the peak in Gilded in 1881 and Progressive in 1899 to bracket the 1886 date.

But the peak in Lost is 1943 and the peak a GI/Silent hydrid would be in 1975 so we should look between 1943 and 1975 (when the Lost were younger) for our 1886 equivalent. 1886 is 5/18's through the 1881-99 period, 1952 is 5/18's of the way through 1943-75. A likely candidate might be the beginning of the Civil Rights struggle in 1955. This was also about when William F. Buckley was first getting started with the National Review which observers often consider the beginning of the modern conservative movement and so a good date for the beginning of a new conservative paradigm.

This scheme would have 1955=1886, 1896=1968. One advantage of this formulation is it jives with critical election theory whereas 1886=1968 doesn't. One can draw any cycle one wants if you look at just one thing. It is when you start to find correlations with other people's cycles that it gets interesting.

Here's an indication that the attacks may have spurred us into the whole strengthening-the-family thing.

1881 Gilded gen (Nomad) peak in Spring @ 79%
1899 Progress (Civic/Artist hybrid) peak: Summer @ 64%


[Mike:] Here I have a problem. You relate 1968 to the fading of the Lost (at age 76 they would be fading) but in the equivalent year 1886 the Gilded were 54, hardly fading. And here you use the peak in Gilded in 1881 and Progressive in 1899 to bracket the 1886 date.

[Marc] Right. But obviously we're back to that sticky Civil War Anomaly business again.

[Mike] But the peak in Lost is 1943 and the peak a GI/Silent hy[b]rid would be in 1975 so we should look between 1943 and 1975 (when the Lost were younger) for our 1886 equivalent.

[Marc] I take it that you're equating the age factor in your 'GI/Silent hy[b]rid would be in 1975'?

[Mike] 1886 is 5/18's through the 1881-99 period, 1952 is 5/18's of the way through 1943-75. A likely candidate might be the beginning of the Civil Rights struggle in 1955. This was also about when William F. Buckley was first getting started with the National Review which observers often consider the beginning of the modern conservative movement and so a good date for the beginning of a new conservative paradigm.

[Marc] This is where one MUST go, if one does NOT adhere to the Anomaly: Only problem is, you end up equating spring with summer, or Marxist 'new' liberalism of 1886 with Buckley 'new' conservatism of 1955. You see the cycles alright, but they are misalligned politically.

I would doubt that you disagree, Mike, that the period from 1948 to 1968 represented an empowered, or maturity wave of liberalism based in the theology of Marx (born-again in folks like young Lincoln Steffans in 1886), right?

Therefore, it only stands to reason that, sometime during that twenty year span, a 'new' conservatism was born: A conservatism much different from that of the Lost generation, or Rockefeller wing of the GOP which was a servant of the mature Marxist liberalism. A 'new' Buckley/Goldwater/Reagan/Limbaugh conservatism that would not only embrace the New Deal but, post-1974, propel it into the next millennium (and hence setup the next paradigm).

So 1886 is off one season from 1955. That 'season' was lost during the Civil War. The Gilded Nomads were somewhere in late midlife when Lincoln Steffans discovered Marx in 1886. Hence the strange Anomaly that gave birth to a Civic/Adaptive hybrid (seen by applying Dent's Innovation and Maturity waves).

By the way where is your gold-eagle article on Dent?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2001-10-23 09:43 ]</font>

Ok everyone, do you want undeniable proof that we are in 4T? However, of course, it is the new 1930s, not 1950s.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/776462.html

<font color="blue">Trust in government is highest it's been in decades
Kevin Diaz
Star Tribune

Published Oct 23 2001
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Marine Lt. Gen. Emil (Buck) Bedard, a Vietnam veteran from Argyle, Minn., gave a steely description of the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan to a group of Minnesota expatriates last week:

"We're going to find [the terrorists], we're going to root them out, and we're going to kill them just as fast as we can."

Cheers went up from the crowd of 150, gathered for the annual Minnesota State Society walleye dinner at Fort Myer, a leafy army campus overlooking the Pentagon.

In other gatherings around the nation -- in sports stadiums, schools and services for the victims of the September 11 attacks -- Americans are showing their support for similar expressions of faith in U.S. military might and the government that orchestrates it.

Polls show that cynicism is out and trust in government is back up to levels not seen since before the height of the Vietnam War.

It's also evident in politics. President Bush, with approval ratings hovering around 90 percent, is backing a federal takeover of the nation's airport security. The Senate's most ardent ideological conservatives, who usually oppose any federal government expansion, joined in a 100-0 vote to create a 28,000-member airport security force.

State workers in Minnesota, meanwhile, sometimes found their patriotism questioned during a two-week strike this month. More than half of the respondents in a recent Minnesota Poll thought the strike's timing was wrong.

To Lawrence Jacobs, a University of Minnesota political scientist, what is happening in America since the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center is akin to "a tidal wave of trust" that extends from neighbors to the president.

Bound together by crisis, and focused on images of police, firefighters and military pilots risking their lives, Americans are seeing not only government workers they can trust, but also people they admire.

"We're seeing the heroism of total strangers that gives us a kind of confidence that this abstraction called government is being run by people, and these are people who are noble," Jacobs said. "When's the last time we heard that?"

By most accounts, it's been about four decades. A Gallup poll after the Sept. 11 attacks found that 60 percent of respondents said they can "trust government in Washington to do what is right" most of the time or just about always. That's the highest percentage since 1968, when the nation was deep in the Vietnam War.

With the fall of Saigon, urban unrest and the Watergate era, public trust in government gave way to cynicism that continued through much of the 1970s and '80s, according to Gallup analyst Frank Newport. It bottomed out in 1994, when only 17 percent of Americans expressed overall trust in government. Even at the height of the boom economy in 2000, the government trust rating rose to just 42 percent, 18 points below where it is now.

Rising confidence in the federal government was documented in a similar study released last week by the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. "Americans turn to the federal government in times of crisis because its very purpose is to solve broad, complex problems that the private sector cannot," said Paul Light, Brookings director of governmental studies.

Poll after poll has also documented a rise in patriotism, and schools across the nation are placing added emphasis on reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Some political analysts call it a "rally around" effect, the tendency of people to look more kindly on government leaders in times of war, at least in matters of national defense.

In the airport security debate, Republican House members such as Minnesota's Jim Ramstad, among those pushing for a federal takeover, say it is no great departure from their core ideology of less government. "There has always been faith in government in terms of public safety," he said. "The reason we have a federal government is to protect people and assure safety."

Mission to protect

For some analysts, events since Sept. 11 have trained the public eye on the best side of government: its mission to protect. "In any crisis, the first people on the line are government workers," said Beth Moten, legislative director for the American Federation of Government Employees, the union that would represent many of the new federal airport screeners. "They're paid to do that, and by God, they do it."

Similarly, Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said he noticed less grumbling about government waste and inefficiency after the Red River flood recovery efforts. "That made big believers out of people in government," he said. "Sometimes, we forget what a great country we are."

It's less clear whether the surge of national pride extends to trusting government on all matters of domestic policy. Even as Americans have felt inspired by images of firefighters running into the burning World Trade Center, there's been plenty of criticism of U.S. anti-terrorism preparedness before Sept. 11.

"What in the track record of the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] makes you feel comfortable?" said Rep. Mark Kennedy, R-Minn., an aviation subcommittee member who opposes a federal airport security force.

And when government, or government workers, appear to be working at cross-purposes with the overriding mission of national defense, the "rally around" effect seems to work against them, as striking state workers found out this month.

"The fact is, in times like this people support government," said Carroll Doherty, a political analyst at the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. "But they don't want government, or government employees, to bite back."

Back to the '50s

To Doherty, the growing public trust in the federal government has less to do with its actual performance than with an abiding faith in its mission -- such as that outlined last week by Lt. Gen. Bedard.

"Not since the Cold War has the government had such an important mission," Doherty said. "So this trust is not so much a reflection of what government has done, but a hope for what government can accomplish."

But along with the return of flag-waving support for government, some also detect the return of another vestige of pre-Vietnam America.

"There's a real conformitarian spirit in America right now," Jacobs said. From pride in the New York fire department and Congress spontaneously singing "God Bless America" on the Capitol steps, "it's flipped gradually into an expectation that you won't raise critical issues, that you'll fall into line," he said. "It's the new 1950s."</font>

Boy, this polling data on the 'trust' factor that I posted nearly three weeks ago on at the Generations and Turnings by the Numbers thread sure is getting a lot of press lately.

Am I, Mr. 'clueless' 3T, ahead of the curve, or what? :lol:




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2001-10-23 09:51 ]</font>

[Mike] A likely candidate might be the beginning of the Civil Rights struggle in 1955.

[Marc] I would analyze this as a 'maturity' phase of the 'Civil Rights struggle,' that had gathered momentum in the wake of Dubois, and the massive voting reversal that occurred in the '30s, with Blacks switching from the party of Lincoln to the party of FDR.

In the '60s, the GIs were none too keen to take part in the next phase of the King led struggle. And with the death of King, the struggle then took on the face of PC-induced 'inner-directed' cultural enlightenment. Forced busing de-segregation implemented in the '70s has been a total failure, and already has been rolled back wherever it was tried.

[Marc:] I would doubt that you disagree, Mike, that the period from 1948 to 1968 represented an empowered, or maturity wave of liberalism based in the theology of Marx (born-again in folks like young Lincoln Steffans in 1886), right?

[Mike:] Now you've really got me confused. I thought that the New Deal was a conservative response to the threat of "Lincoln Steffanism". The New Deal was a *refutation* of socialism that "saved capitalism" (I'm sure I remember you using this terminology before).

I would see Lincoln Steffens as like Malcolm X. That is, as awakening type status-quo challengers. These are the people who challenged the old conservative paradigm (Gilded, Lost) which resulted in having *part* of their program incorporated into the new conservative paradigm.

Lincoln Steffanesque muckraking did bring socialist-inspired changes to the conservative paradigm, but *plenty* of his program was rejected. Malcom X-inspired activism did bring an anti-racist flavor to the conservative paradigm, but plenty is going to be rejected in the coming mid-course correction (multiculturalism perhaps?).

Don't you hate when people label you a racist just because you are a conservative. Yet, I'll bet the epithet "free-trader" doesn't upset you at all.

The Lost conservative paradigm became Keynesian (and racist) during the Depression mid-course realignment. Early in the 1900's is was the liberals that were in favor of segregation (conservatives were opposed). The same conservative Supreme Court that struck down one socialistic, pro-labor "liberal" law after another *also* struck down segregation laws put in by racist liberals. The eugenics movement was a *liberal* phenomenon.

One can think sort of like this:

Liberty: pre-industrial yeoman farmers, more racist
Gilded: laissez faire industrialists, less racist
Lost: Keynesian industrial workers, more racist
Xer: post-industrial free-trade agents, less racist

All that I am trying to do is establish when the *seeds" of the New Deal were planted in order to establish the time it took for those seeds to bear fruit.

The New Deal in it's purist form was Marxism. It became Marxism-lite (or just plain liberal) when the Republican Democracy was finished tweaking it. To me that doesn't make it conservative, per se, at all; The New Deal is a liberal contract embraced by conservatives, who changed the way they governed according to 'contract'. And they changed generationally.

I believe the New Deal *seed* was first planted sometime between 1886 and 1896 when Marx was raised from the dead (of 1848). And some forty years later, it's root(s) became estabished in the New Deal, and began to bear fruit in 1948. Sometime between 1968 and 1974, a 'new' seed was planted. And some forty years later, it's root(s) will become established in the next New Deal. :smile:




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2001-10-23 13:25 ]</font>

I've got questions for Marc Lamb, Mike Alexander, and anyone else who cares to answer.

If you look at the lengths of generations and turnings, as posited by Strauss and Howe, clearly both are getting shorter -- from about 25 years in the early saeculi to about 18 years of late. For example, assuming that 4T began on 9/11/01:

Depression/WWII 4T -- 17 years (1929-1946)
Post War High 1T -- 17 years (1947-1963)
Consciousness Rev 2T - 20 years (1964-1983)
Dot Com 3T -- 18 years? (1984-2001?)

Silent (artist) -- 1925-1942 (18 years)
Boomer (prophet) -- 1943-1960 (18 years)
Gen X (nomad) -- 1961-1981? (21 years)
Millennial (hero) - 1982-1998? 17 years)

Assuming a 9/11/01 turning, for the last 4 turnings, you have 72 years. Likewise, for the four living and complete generations, you have 74 years. Each turning and each generation is pretty close in length, ranging from 17-21 years.

Marc, your point (which is well taken) is that having 9/11/01 be the start of 4T leaves you with too many active late-middle-aged Silents on the scene and that the Boomers, Gen X'ers, and Millies are too young. However, If we waited 5-10 years for the "real" 4T to begin, you'd have 3T lasting from 1984-2010ish, which is 27 years. You'd also have a 27-year Millennial generation.

Alternatively, you could arguably push back the start of the awakening to 1966-1967 and the start of the unravelling until 1986 (Challenger explosion) as some have posited. You could make Craig '84 ecstatic by pushing the start of the Millies to 1984-1985.

So Marc, since you believe we are in 1920, do you see a long 3T/Millie generation or do you think the 2T/Gen X generations AND 3T/Millie generations should begin later?

Mike, I know that you believe 4T started around 2000-2001 through your economic analysis. What role do you see that the generational make-up plays in turnings? Do you think changes in generational composition affect turnings? Do you buy S&H's generational boundaries and how, if at all, do they fit into your framework.

All others who, like me, feel in their bones that 4T began on 9/11/01, reconcile the shortening of turnings and generations and what impact do you think that has on S&H's model? Me, I'm just confused.

S&H, I'd love your comments too.
_________________
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 2001-10-23 13:28 ]</font>

OK I think I see your point. I'll go along with the idea that the "seed" of the New Deal (the idea for it) arose around 1886 like you suggest. However, I'd say the "seed" of the new "individual rights-without-responsibility" liberalism has its "seed" in the Civil Rights movement in the mid 1950's. By the late 1960's it was already far along.

The key issue of the movement was on "rights" of (name your group) to (what do you want?). Isn't this what you are talking about as what is being rejected today?

Intially the movement began with promoting rights of blacks to basic political and economic rights (e.g. voting rights and job discrimination laws). Later it has come to insist on the the right of "protected groups" to freedom from *all* discrimination, including the discrimination that allows one to determine that "A is better than B". This has led to phenomena like "multiculturalism" and "ebonics".

The Dent article is from April, so you might have seen it. Here's the url:

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials...der040301.html


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mike Alexander '59 on 2001-10-23 16:32 ]</font>

[Jenny:] Mike, I know that you believe 4T started around 2000-2001 through your economic analysis. What role do you see that the generational make-up plays in turnings? Do you think changes in generational composition affect turnings? Do you buy S&H's generational boundaries and how, if at all, do they fit into your framework.

[Mike:] I am fairly sure that turnings produce generations (history creates generations). Thus generations being *born* are closely associated with the turnings that produce them.

I am not so keen on the generations produce history idea. If generations *directly* produced turnings simply by their mix, the the length of turnings *today* should reflect the length of generations in the past. If the principal generational actors come from big generations then the period in which they act should be lengthy also. The 25 year Compromiser and 30 year Transcendental should combine to produce a long Transcendental awakening. But it was only 23 years long. It's not like there are external events that "trigger" awakenings, right? They should develop "naturally" from the generations.

I do believe that generations are *one* of several factors that produce turnings and they do so through S&H's concept of a peer personality.

I believe the driver for the saeculum today is the paradigm. A paradigm is sort of a world view that we hold that allows us to make sense of the world we live in. People's behavior (i.e. turnings) is strongly influenced by what they believe to be true (i.e. their paradigm). One example of a paradigm today is the widespread belief that bin Laden and his buddies are mad dogs who have an insane hatred of the US. This belief influences the type of actions the US takes or does not take with regard to the terrorism problem.

The kind of paradigm we as a society hold is heavily influenced by the generations who are the major actors. The central generation today are the Boomers, who as Marc points out are still rising to their peak of power. Our peer personality is Idealist. We tend to put more faith in our *theories* and *ideas* rather than objective reality.

Hence we can get our society into all sorts of problems (stock valuations are not high--they reflect the new internet economy which "changes everything", the undeclared war in Afghanistan is a "new kind of war" for which none of the "lessons" of Vietnam apply) that those with paradigms more rooted in reality will not.

On the other hand, those who see the world "as it is" cannot see any other kind of world, and this leads to stagnation.

Jenny:

I think your original analysis is correct, with one caveat. Yes, the generations are shorter now, and the turnings are shorter, but that isn't required, at least not for the 4T (or for that matter, for the 1T).

What triggers the turnings?

1T: End of External Crisis

2T: Internal awakening

3T: Internal deterioration

4T: External Crisis. (Or internal financial crisis, Mike A?)

2T and 3T are simply dictated by our own generational speed, little outside triggering is necessary.

4T can start too early if big enough (Civil War), early (911), on time, or even a little late (maybe WWII?). It needs a trigger. Financial triggers might be it (we might've seen a 2002 depression, 911 notwithstanding), but turnings are more clear with a solid external crisis.

If 9/11/01 had happened on 9/11/07, I would posit that Craig '84 would certainly have ended up a late wave Xer. But as a 17-year-old who will attend college in the new, team-spirit-we-will-overcome era, his cohort will end up as Millies for sure.


Summary:

Turning events (esp 4T and 1T) can move gen boundaries. 4T needs a trigger, and 1T needs a conclusion to the crisis.

(We already know that gen boundaries make us react with "turnings".)

2T and 3T happen internally of their own accord, according to our internal generational speed.

Generational speed is faster than in the past.

I cannot argue with Mike A's economic theory, maybe that would've been our (weaker) 4T trigger. 9-11 was so forceful that a recession/depression was unnecessary.

Nothing new here writes Ms. Arundhati Roy in the article Brutality smeared in peanut butter in the 23 October 2001 number of the Guardian (UK).

Ms. Genser wonders, "So Marc, since you believe we are in 1920, do you see a long 3T/Millie generation or do you think the 2T/Gen X generations AND 3T/Millie generations should begin later?"


I dunno about that, Ms. Genser. But this I have concluded, post-525: I have said enough here :smile:.

I think I have found a new home.

OK, folks, here's the latest episode of our favorite guessing game, 3T/4T!

Our first contestant:

http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/1...ews.36786.html

Routine intelligence matter, or an echo of the confinement camps for Japanese-descended Americans?



For our next contestant, we have:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,...364909,00.html


Does anyone know how to make this type of link show up right on the forum? You'll have to type the second part into your browser.


Is this Xer practicality at work, or 4T ruthlessness already finding a cliff to run over?

(Personally, I agree with the sentiments of Mr. Blitzer. Every time this gets tried, it pretty well invariably goes nastily wrong. That's my pragmatic Xer take.)




And our special guest for today on 3T/4T:

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/2001...r_fears_1.html

Is central Asia/Islam reving up for its own 4T?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2001-10-23 21:34 ]</font>

i'll give it a shot. how's this?


TK

hey, HC68! it worked.... you just need to make a standard HTML link.


TK

On 2001-10-23 21:48, TrollKing wrote:
hey, HC68! it worked.... you just need to make a standard HTML link.


TK

Thanks! I feel like an idiot, but for some reason that just didn't even occur to me!

Jenny,
regarding your post: see my posts on pages 45 and 48.

Mike,
I have another definition of a paradigm:
...
twenty cent.

On 2001-10-23 18:54, Marc Lamb wrote:
Ms. Genser wonders, "So Marc, since you believe we are in 1920, do you see a long 3T/Millie generation or do you think the 2T/Gen X generations AND 3T/Millie generations should begin later?"


I dunno about that, Ms. Genser. But this I have concluded, post-525: I have said enough here :smile:.

I think I have found a new home.

Marc, I truly am interested in your thoughts. Your posts on the numbers are interesting and you make sensible points. Its just that I'm curious how you would reconcile the long 3T (if you believe we have 8-10 years to go) withthe rest of the cycle, or if you had any thoughts on the impact of a large hero generation and long 3T (just as the huge Transie generation undoubtably affected the outcome of the Civil War 4T).

Ms. Genser continues to wonder, "Its just that I'm curious how you would reconcile the long 3T (if you believe we have 8-10 years to go) withthe rest of the cycle, or if you had any thoughts on the impact of a large hero generation and long 3T (just as the huge Transie generation undoubtably affected the outcome of the Civil War 4T)."

As a parting shot here, I will at least attempt to reconcile the 911/WWI events to what Dr. Vince Lamb called the '24 year monster': the Greatest Generation.

Eighty years prior to the year Strauss and Howe peg as the first birth year of the new 'millennial' generation, a famous hero was born. I decided to take a look at the vaunted hero of the '20s, Charles Lindbergh, because I was having a little trouble understanding how a generation could actually start six to seven years before a turning. I think Mike Alexander refered to it as 'a bit of a stretch.'

Scott Berg's biography "Lindbergh" is a definitive look at this man, and I found some very 'nomadic' traits in Lindbergh that seemed to suggest S&H were wrong about 1902. I detailed them here.

Obviously, Lindbergh's life story points to the difficulty in determining archetypes. But with civic-type generations there is an easier way to go about it. I discovered this while studying Harry Dent's interpetation of the Stauss and Howe theory and what he calls The Generation Wave .

'The Generation Wave,' claims Dent, 'tells us when, where and how an innovative generation will impact the economy.' I then came across the story of this man and had to then conclude that indeed the year 1902 included those born at the right time into the 'Maturity Innovation Wave' of the American High. (1901 I am not so sure about at all. Disney, an artist at heart, reminds me too much of (Lost gen) Norman Rockwell).

So why is this important concerning WWI and 911? Simple: I believe that America's entrance into WWI in 1917 changed generational history, and thus creating the '24 year monster.' And 911 will probably have the same effect today on the Millennial generation.

History creates Generations and Generations create History. I thank William Strauss and Neil Howe for discovering that, imho, fact of life.

But, quite simply, I have run out of things to say here at T4T. I wish you all well. As we 'deepen into the 3T, one would be wise to keep an eye on a growing 'isolationist' movement in America. And watch these young guys very closely. And even this guy too!

And finally, take some time and check out what this guy wrote when things begin to look very un4Tish.

Meanwhile, I'll be posting here, my new home in a 'BRAVE NEW WORLD' :lol:



p.s. Post five hundred twenty six... now I'm even. :smile:




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2001-10-24 12:46 ]</font>