Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Evidence We're in a Third--or Fourth--Turning - Page 347







Post#8651 at 05-17-2004 02:41 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
05-17-2004, 02:41 PM #8651
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
H.C., circumstances are currently changing radically. There is greater prospect for a UDS in the near future (meaning in the next couple of decades) than you might suppose.
The only realistic way that could happen is if they find themselves facing a serious common enemy, over a long period, that visibly threatens their continued existence.


The beginnings of it could grow from what Kerry says he wants to do about our trade agreements. Provisions requiring respect for labor rights and environmental protection, if enforced, could quickly divide the world into those who respect these things and can trade freely with each other (which tend to be the advanced democracies), and those who don't and can't.
The Western democracies can't even agree among themselves about the definitions of those things, that the gap is currently widening. But the more important underlying cultural and social differences are more important yet.

Such things change, but only slowly. Even Fourth Turnings tend to wash over them like waves eroding a rock, the rock erodes, but it takes many waves to do it, and if a wave happens to dislodge the rock and roll it upslope, the erosion can actually slow down. Something like that happened, in fact, during the Missionary 4T, internationalism was stronger in the 1890s and 1920s than in the 1950s or 1980s.







Post#8652 at 05-17-2004 03:00 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
05-17-2004, 03:00 PM #8652
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
The only realistic way that could happen is if they find themselves facing a serious common enemy, over a long period, that visibly threatens their continued existence.
That's exactly what's coming. Enemies are not always military.







Post#8653 at 05-17-2004 06:54 PM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
05-17-2004, 06:54 PM #8653
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Self inflicted wounds

Quote Originally Posted by W. Joseph Stroupe
It is extremely
important here to resist the tendency to dismiss warnings, based either upon a refusal to face the facts,
no matter how unpleasant they might be, or based upon
unfounded confidence in the status quo. Just to
illustrate, remember that in early 2001, huge and
seemingly endless surpluses were forecast for the US economy. The high-tech sector was booming. Things
apparently seemed very healthy and bright for the US in
an economic sense. But within mere months, it had all
evaporated. Where did it all go? A significant amount of
America's wealth is being transferred overseas, as noted
above. This demonstrates that, even for a superpower,
nothing is assured. And as economic wealth and power
fade, so do all the derivative forms of power - this
truth cannot be refuted.

As an old proverb says,
"The scene of this world is changing." Tremendous
economic wealth and its resulting power can dissipate very rapidly, especially in a crisis. Certainly that is
true in view of the fact that other powers, in a
concerted effort to bring about their much-desired
multipolar world order, are developing a coherent strategy to weaken US economic power by transferring
significant wealth outside of US boundaries, and when
the United States itself is unwittingly participating in
its own decline.
US complicit in its own decline in the 31 March 2004 number of The Asia Times Online.







Post#8654 at 05-17-2004 10:32 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
05-17-2004, 10:32 PM #8654
Guest

This just in...
  • (05-17) 13:56 PDT LAUSANNE, Switzerland (AP) --

    Transsexuals were cleared Monday to compete in the Olympics for the first time.

    Under a proposal approved by the IOC executive board, athletes who have undergone sex-change surgery will be eligible for the Olympics if their new gender has been legally recognized and they have gone through a minimum two-year period of postoperative hormone therapy.
3T, or something else... uh, you can decide. 8)







Post#8655 at 05-17-2004 10:48 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
05-17-2004, 10:48 PM #8655
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Re: Idealism+Romance?=Pea-Pod-ism!

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54
Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
International affairs are about self-interest, not community values or the rule of law. You can't have the later two until you have an actual, functioning community, and nothing of the sort exists yet above the national level.
Yes, no and maybe.

On the economic side, some say that if the US hadn't gone unilateral preemptive, the UN would shortly have killed the sanctions, and French and Russian companies would have been contracted to handle the Iraqi oil. Some still assert that the best way to understand the situation is to follow the money.
Eh? The UN didn't have the deciding power, and the sanctions were already leaking like a sieve anyway, with the active cooperation of the UN Secretariat and the French and German governments (among others), or it strongly looks that way now.





And bottom line, it is in everyone's selfish best interests to support factions that will grant them basic human dignity, and resist factions that don't.
You'd think so, but history shows little sign of any pattern of that happening.


To the extent that the US is perceived as acting in our economic self interest, without respecting basic human rights, it is in the world's self interest to resist us.
The 'world' has no self-interest. Various communities, groups, and individuals have interests that either align with us, or against us, but there simply is no 'world' interest right now.



If we intend to lead the world, rather than conquer it, it will be necessary to act morally. This means reducing the division of wealth between the First and Third worlds, rather than acting selfishly.
Before we can act morally to lead the world, we have to establish what is and is not moral. What makes large divisions of wealth immoral?

And the further we get from 3T mode to 4T mode, the more important an idealistic vision becomes, the less short term profits matter. The good guys are pushing equality, human rights, and opportunity for all.
What happens if everyone is pushing their own self-interest first in the 4T, the way they did last time, and the time before that, and the time before that...?


As Napoleon said, The moral is to the physical as three to one.
True, but Napoleon also understood the intangible realities of government and society, and only fell when he forgot them. Few current-day leaders or rulers show any sign of such a perception.







Post#8656 at 05-17-2004 10:50 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
05-17-2004, 10:50 PM #8656
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
The only realistic way that could happen is if they find themselves facing a serious common enemy, over a long period, that visibly threatens their continued existence.
That's exactly what's coming. Enemies are not always military.
The ones that matter in this context always are.







Post#8657 at 05-18-2004 06:41 AM by Croakmore [at The hazardous reefs of Silentium joined Nov 2001 #posts 2,426]
---
05-18-2004, 06:41 AM #8657
Join Date
Nov 2001
Location
The hazardous reefs of Silentium
Posts
2,426

Wrong. It's religious self-righteousness that gets us into all this trouble. If not that then it's hubris fired up with testosterone.







Post#8658 at 05-19-2004 07:00 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
05-19-2004, 07:00 AM #8658
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Re: Idealism+Romance?=Pea-Pod-ism!

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54
And the further we get from 3T mode to 4T mode, the more important an idealistic vision becomes, the less short term profits matter. The good guys are pushing equality, human rights, and opportunity for all.
What happens if everyone is pushing their own self-interest first in the 4T, the way they did last time, and the time before that, and the time before that...?
One of my family's World War II stories centers on my father's uncle. Said uncle tried to join the army, but was rejected as he worked as a welder in a ship yard. This was rated as a critical war time job. The army was not allowed to enlist him. His response was to try to join the Marines, then the Navy, then the Air Corps... who all had the same list of those holding critical jobs as the Army. He finally managed to join the Merchant Marine as a civilian sailor, which was essentially a front line position early in the war.

I first heard this story during the Vietnam years. I was perplexed. Why, given a perfectly safe shipyard job which the government considered more important than a front line job, would a guy go out of the way to put himself in danger? My father explained it was different then. The world was at threat. Everyone contributed. For a fit male to stay in a production job - even in a crucial war industry at the government's insistence - was not done.

I didn't comprehend this fully until September 11th, 2001. The mood of the country shifted enough that I felt I could wrap my heart around what the post Pearl Harbor mood must have been like. Of course, the parallels weren't complete. Just after September 11th, I was laid off from a military engineering job, and told it was my patriotic duty to contribute to the War on Terror by buying enough Christmas presents to stimulate the economy. My situation was thus quite different than my great uncle's.

Anyway, if you are so devoid of idealism and willingness to work for a better world as to not comprehend the possibility of profound priority shifts, my understanding of how crises work are not going to make sense to you. I will be as cynical as you please about 3T ruling elites. I will discount 3T leader's moral posturing, and follow the money trail to find darker motivations. Still, I take cyclical theory seriously enough to anticipate a true coming together for common cause when the threat gets profound enough.

We had a brief foretaste of it in late 2001. It's faded. It's gone. Afghanistan and Iraq have faded into foreplay events. We've picked up some lessons learned. When the next major phase of the cascade materializes, everyone will know about the importance of allies, human rights and occupation forces. Well, most will know. Those who can't admit mistakes never learn.

When the future of civilization is on the line, selfish motivation beyond making sure your side wins fades. Sure, there will be war profiteering by the ruling elites. They are (expletive deleted.) For people with a soul, idealistic and selfish motivations merge. To reach the High, one must first solve the Crisis, and there is no doubt as to where the energy of the moment must go.

And it isn't partisan whining.







Post#8659 at 05-19-2004 10:56 AM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
05-19-2004, 10:56 AM #8659
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Re: Idealism+Romance?=Pea-Pod-ism!

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54
Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54
And the further we get from 3T mode to 4T mode, the more important an idealistic vision becomes, the less short term profits matter. The good guys are pushing equality, human rights, and opportunity for all.
What happens if everyone is pushing their own self-interest first in the 4T, the way they did last time, and the time before that, and the time before that...?
One of my family's World War II stories centers on my father's uncle. Said uncle tried to join the army, but was rejected as he worked as a welder in a ship yard. This was rated as a critical war time job. The army was not allowed to enlist him. His response was to try to join the Marines, then the Navy, then the Air Corps... who all had the same list of those holding critical jobs as the Army. He finally managed to join the Merchant Marine as a civilian sailor, which was essentially a front line position early in the war.
Bob, that is a fascinating story. Of course, it happened deep into the 4T, not at the beginning.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#8660 at 05-19-2004 11:22 AM by eric cumis [at joined Feb 2002 #posts 441]
---
05-19-2004, 11:22 AM #8660
Join Date
Feb 2002
Posts
441

The Culture Wars Go Ballistic

http://rogerlsimon.com/archives/00000967.htm

Blaster's Blog and Beyond - The Culture Wars Go Ballistic

Well, not quite, but they seem to be headed that way. We live in extreme times and seem not to be talking to each other anymore. When I read the following post Blaster's Blog (hat tip: Catherine Johnson), all I could think was "whither democracy?"... or maybe "wither democracy."

I just watched a segment of Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. Specifically the segment with Cece Connolly, Juan Williams, Brit Hume and Bill Kristol.

No transcript as of yet, but I was taken aback by the tenor of the discussion. Especially between Juan Williams and Brit Hume. Juan Williams can be a pain, but I have never heard him straw man arguments like he was in this segment.

The basic gist of the argument was originally advanced by Bill Kristol. That being that the overarching importance of the War and its objectives are being critically undermined by the focus on the abuse scandals. Juan took that to mean that we are all okay with torture. After a back and forth, Brit stepped in.

In the middle of his sentence, Juan interrupted Brit, and badly distorted the point that Brit was not through making. Brit was visibly irritated, something I have never seen before. And then went on to make his point in a manner that made clear his irritation at Juan, and made his point crystal clear.


Wallace then jumped in and ended the segment, but you could see the two men glaring at each other. Something I have never seen.

I think, once again, that we are at another point at which the two major outlooks in the United States cannot seem to communicate. These have occurred during the Iran-Contra affair, the Clarence Thomas Hearing, Monica Lewinsky, the 2000 Presidential election, Iraq and now this.

Now I don't know if the situation has always been like this, but in my experience of being acutely aware in politics, which I can date to 1986, the animosity and bitterness between the two viewpoints seems to be getting much worse with time.


Well, my awareness dates from a number significantly earlier than, ahem, 1986 (Wasn't that two weeks ago? Never mind.) and I can't remember anything as vitriolic as what is going on now. Now perhaps that is normal repression and 'twas ever thus. But the situation at this historical moment is arguably more crucial than any since WWII. Now more than ever we should be listening to each other and seeking common cause, but we're not.

William Safire's piece in this morning's NYT addresses this situation from another angle. Safire is certainly a partisan, but his listing of the four (ultimately five) "no's" from the antiwar crowd is telling, particularly his second "no" that "no connection was made between Saddam and Al Qaeda or any of its terrorist affiliates. This is asserted as revealed truth with great fervor, despite an extensive listing of communications and meetings between Iraqi officials and terrorists submitted to Congress months ago."

We are seeing the fruits of this ostrich-like behavior now in the seemingly ubiquitous presence of Zarqawi, whose letter may have spear-headed the present round of attacks against innocent Iraqi civilians and who is allegedly involved in the beheading of an American (also a civilian). This is an Islamist terrorist who fled Afghanistan to seek medical treatment from a supposedly secular regime. In fact, I find this whole desire of the antiwar people to separate the "secular" Saddam from the "religious" Osama to be a kind of willed distortion of reality. These same people would never blink an eye if you told them Mafia chieftains had put their rivalry on hold to defeat a common enemy. They are intelligent and would declare that to be obvious -- "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

So why do they not see it now? This is the kind of (again) willed blindness our culture wars engender. It is more important to defeat our supposed enemies (Democrats, Republicans) than our real ones (Islamists). How crazy is that!







Post#8661 at 05-19-2004 12:19 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
05-19-2004, 12:19 PM #8661
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Some more examples of tempers boiling over, from today's headlines:

Protesters overshadow Giuliani's testimony

Purple powder thrown at Blair in Commons







Post#8662 at 05-19-2004 01:18 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
05-19-2004, 01:18 PM #8662
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Some more examples of tempers boiling over, from today's headlines:

Protesters overshadow Giuliani's testimony
Mere "tempers boiling over," eh? That's pretty funny considering that just a few days ago, expressions like these over Berg's beheading were called an "outcry of hate from Americans," right here at this website and echoed loudly by the left everywhere.

As Giuliani noted, the reactions he faced were very "understandable" given what these folks lost several years ago. But I guess getting upset at watching an innocent American getting his head cut off but a bunch of barbarian cowards doesn't qualify as understandable, does it?







Post#8663 at 05-20-2004 12:28 AM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
05-20-2004, 12:28 AM #8663
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Re: Idealism+Romance?=Pea-Pod-ism!

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler

Anyway, if you are so devoid of idealism and willingness to work for a better world as to not comprehend the possibility of profound priority shifts,
Looking at my post, I see why you misunderstood it. When I said everyone, I was referring not to individuals but to groups, esp. governments and nations. They don't cease being fundamentally self-interested during 4T periods, or they never ever have, anyway. If they do this time, it'll be nearly unprecedented.







Post#8664 at 05-20-2004 09:25 PM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
05-20-2004, 09:25 PM #8664
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

Khakis

And for something a bit more light-hearted...

A few weeks ago I went shopping for a couple pair of khakis, because my old ones were wearing a bit thin, and noticed something interesting.

Back in 2001, when you shopped at the Gap or Eddie Bauer, you could choose from three tailorings of khakis-- classic (trim) fit, relaxed fit, or loose fit (i.e. baggy). Each of those three could then be had in two different styles-- pleated or unpleated-- for a total of six combinations of fit and style.

Now, three years later...it turns out that all the pleated pants come only one way...either relaxed or loose, depending on the store. Likewise, classic fit khakis only come unpleated. This was something of an issue for me, since I prefer the pleated/classic-fit combination, but it was no longer an option.

Could this be a relatively-benign sign of what S&H referred to in "T4T" as Americans "choosing not to be burdened by choice"? Others are emerging as well, most notably that auto manufacturers seem to be producing fewer models, as well as fewer trim levels, colors and option combinations within each model line. The two-door, manually-shifted sport coupe is retreating rapidly into a small, niche market and may soon disappear entirely. Two entire motor divisions-- Plymouth and Oldsmobile-- have been completely eliminated since 911.

Another strange occurrence is the reaction that Americans are having toward rapidly escalating gasoline prices. Back in the Awakening, the last time the entire nation witnessed a similar run-up, a daily mad rush to the pumps (before prices jumped even higher!) led to routine quarter-mile lineups, as well as to people spending the night in their cars parked at gas stations to be first in line in the morning. In 2004, people are avoiding gas stations until the last possible minute, some actually running out of gas on the street out of fear of how much it will cost them to fill up when they finally do.

These developments strike me as rather 4T-ish. Does anyone else think so?







Post#8665 at 05-20-2004 10:15 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
05-20-2004, 10:15 PM #8665
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Re: Khakis

Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59
And for something a bit more light-hearted...

A few weeks ago I went shopping for a couple pair of khakis, because my old ones were wearing a bit thin, and noticed something interesting.

Back in 2001, when you shopped at the Gap or Eddie Bauer, you could choose from three tailorings of khakis-- classic (trim) fit, relaxed fit, or loose fit (i.e. baggy). Each of those three could then be had in two different styles-- pleated or unpleated-- for a total of six combinations of fit and style.

Now, three years later...it turns out that all the pleated pants come only one way...either relaxed or loose, depending on the store. Likewise, classic fit khakis only come unpleated. This was something of an issue for me, since I prefer the pleated/classic-fit combination, but it was no longer an option.

Could this be a relatively-benign sign of what S&H referred to in "T4T" as Americans "choosing not to be burdened by choice"? Others are emerging as well, most notably that auto manufacturers seem to be producing fewer models, as well as fewer trim levels, colors and option combinations within each model line. The two-door, manually-shifted sport coupe is retreating rapidly into a small, niche market and may soon disappear entirely. Two entire motor divisions-- Plymouth and Oldsmobile-- have been completely eliminated since 911.
I'm inclined to agree, though to a point the closings of the car lines are also coincidental. But yeah, I think we're seeing the first hints, the initial arriving wavelets, of a tendency toward simplification and reduction to basics. That's both good and bad, of course. You lost your favorite style combination, I'm seeing some of my favorite products getting harder to find, too.

OTOH, a lot of the 'choices' that are vanishing were largely the same thing in 19 different packages, too, exercises in the power of Madison Avenue to create the illusion of one thing being ten things. That's been true even of cars to an extent.







Post#8666 at 05-20-2004 10:20 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
05-20-2004, 10:20 PM #8666
Guest

Re: Khakis

Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59
Could this be a relatively-benign sign of what S&H referred to in "T4T" as Americans "choosing not to be burdened by choice"?
Yep, 4T alright. Sacrifice (ie., pain and doing without) is the beginning of wisdom, and the victory of guilt.

May guilt and pain triumph over plenty and "choice." Amen. 8)







Post#8667 at 05-20-2004 10:59 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
05-20-2004, 10:59 PM #8667
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: Self inflicted wounds

Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
US complicit in its own decline in the 31 March 2004 number of The Asia Times Online.
Virgil,

Thank you for scaring the sh*t out of me.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#8668 at 05-21-2004 09:37 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
05-21-2004, 09:37 AM #8668
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Re: Self inflicted wounds

Quote Originally Posted by William J. Lemmiwinks
Quote Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
US complicit in its own decline in the 31 March 2004 number of The Asia Times Online.
Virgil,

Thank you for scaring the sh*t out of me.
That Asia Times article confirms my negative opinion of the Republican policy of deficit spending. Currently, China and Japan have reasons to support the dollar, but even with their current support, we have energy price problems. Oil is expensive in dollars not due to lack of supply, but due to a declining dollar. The US is keeping the money supply high to kick start the economy, but one price for that is foreign exchange rates. Should Chaina and Japan develop a reason to dislike us...







Post#8669 at 05-21-2004 10:33 AM by takascar2 [at North Side, Chi-Town, 1962 joined Jan 2002 #posts 563]
---
05-21-2004, 10:33 AM #8669
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
North Side, Chi-Town, 1962
Posts
563

Re: Khakis

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59
And for something a bit more light-hearted...

A few weeks ago I went shopping for a couple pair of khakis, because my old ones were wearing a bit thin, and noticed something interesting.

Back in 2001, when you shopped at the Gap or Eddie Bauer, you could choose from three tailorings of khakis-- classic (trim) fit, relaxed fit, or loose fit (i.e. baggy). Each of those three could then be had in two different styles-- pleated or unpleated-- for a total of six combinations of fit and style.

Now, three years later...it turns out that all the pleated pants come only one way...either relaxed or loose, depending on the store. Likewise, classic fit khakis only come unpleated. This was something of an issue for me, since I prefer the pleated/classic-fit combination, but it was no longer an option.

Could this be a relatively-benign sign of what S&H referred to in "T4T" as Americans "choosing not to be burdened by choice"? Others are emerging as well, most notably that auto manufacturers seem to be producing fewer models, as well as fewer trim levels, colors and option combinations within each model line. The two-door, manually-shifted sport coupe is retreating rapidly into a small, niche market and may soon disappear entirely. Two entire motor divisions-- Plymouth and Oldsmobile-- have been completely eliminated since 911.
I'm inclined to agree, though to a point the closings of the car lines are also coincidental. But yeah, I think we're seeing the first hints, the initial arriving wavelets, of a tendency toward simplification and reduction to basics. That's both good and bad, of course. You lost your favorite style combination, I'm seeing some of my favorite products getting harder to find, too.

OTOH, a lot of the 'choices' that are vanishing were largely the same thing in 19 different packages, too, exercises in the power of Madison Avenue to create the illusion of one thing being ten things. That's been true even of cars to an extent.
Hehe - I've seen the same with fleece sweatpants. Anywhere you look today, they come in three or four ugly, bland colors. I remember back in the 90's when they had one whole wall at Kohls that had these square cubbyhole-like shelves and they must have had 25 or 30 colors.

Now no one, even Lands End which had a rainbow of colors in the past (and still does for things like golf shirts) Have them. Lands End has only 4 colors. My purple and sunburst orange sweatpants (purchased from Lands End in the 90's) are wearing out and I can't find replacements anywhere!

We aren't in the 4th yet, but we are rapidly approaching...







Post#8670 at 05-21-2004 11:00 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
05-21-2004, 11:00 AM #8670
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Chris Seamans '75
Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Some more examples of tempers boiling over, from today's headlines:

Protesters overshadow Giuliani's testimony

Purple powder thrown at Blair in Commons
OK, I'll bite. How do these two completely unrelated events relate to each other in some meaningful way?
They may simply be coincidences, as you say. OTOH, it may be a sign that ordinary people are getting fed up with the status quo, and they aren't satisfied with the answers that their leaders are giving them.







Post#8671 at 05-21-2004 11:23 AM by Muneraven [at Minnesota joined May 2004 #posts 1]
---
05-21-2004, 11:23 AM #8671
Join Date
May 2004
Location
Minnesota
Posts
1

Not oil but capitalism

I think the fourth turning is going to be the stunning failure of pure capitalism. You can see it coming: a few rich getting richer and the poor increasing, the increasing meanness of the system. If Communism failed because the human race can't sustain a political system based on our best attributes (generosity, fairness, sharing), then Capitalism will fail because a system based on our WORST attributes (greed, selfishness, deceit) is sustainable but leads to a really bad place. Making Communisn work was an uphill battle because our vices are more consistant than our values. But Capitalism is just letting our vices rule . . .it is easy: like rolling a ball downhill. But the bottom of the hill isn't a nice place, and that is where I think the Fourth turning is going to occur: at the bottom of the hill.

Evidence? A political system based on MONEY, not true representatives of the people. An increasing amount of poor people while a few get mega-rich. An increasing dislike for America and the greed and arrogance here. And the globalization of the economy based on us exporting jobs . . .USING cheap labor . . .what will happen in India, in China, when those jobs go away?

Just my thoughts . ..







Post#8672 at 05-21-2004 11:42 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
05-21-2004, 11:42 AM #8672
Guest

Re: Not oil but capitalism

Quote Originally Posted by Muneraven
Making Communisn work was an uphill battle because our vices are more consistant than our values...
A Commie from Minnesota, imagine that! :wink:



p.s. It's good to see there's a few of these relics still around. I mean, what's a zoo without animals, or a museum without relics?







Post#8673 at 05-23-2004 03:44 AM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
05-23-2004, 03:44 AM #8673
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: Back to the original topic.

Quote Originally Posted by Chris Seamans '75
I'm very much interested in the topic that kicked off this thread, but there's been very little substance recently. I've been thinking about "Martin, Barton, and Fish" and whether or not the Culture Wars really will end as abruptly as Strauss and Howe suggest now that the Crisis begins to take shape.

The Depression and World War II were the crises that defined the last 4T, but they're presented as a single, unified Crisis in "The Fourth Turning". This is problematic because the conformist, collectivist attitude and trust in leadership that Strauss and Howe suggest are defining characteristics of the 4T weren't really in abundance until the United States formally entered into World War II--especially with respect to foreign policy. Throughout the '30s, when it was becoming increasingly clear that European fascism and Japanese imperialism were dire threats to global stability, popular opinion was manifestly isolationist and, in many cases, anti-war.

This combination of isolationism and anti-war sentiment that prevailed right up until Pearl Harbor was fueled, in large part, by the bitter memory of the Great War. Even though America's involvement hastened the war's end, the rest of the world seemed unable to govern itself. For various reasons, the governments of Italy, Germany, and Japan were replaced by militant, imperialist political cults. The shattered remnants of the Austro-Hungarian empire appeared fragile and vulnerable. The Soviet Union was consolidating its power and, if the rumors were true (and they were) starving their own people. China was folding in the face of Japanese aggression. France was building a massive bunker complex and re-arming in anticipation of a possible war. Most Americans felt that the nation's entry into the Great War had achieved nothing at the unacceptable cost of American lives.

The Republican Party, a coalition of what would be referred to today as "paleoconservatives" and "paleolibertarians"*, successfully traded on these bitter memories. As threats to world peace and stability increased, they engineered legislation that ensured America would remain neutral in the coming conflict.

America, it would seem, was going to sit this one out.

With the formal start of the war, popular sentiment favored the Allies, but this sentiment was not strong enough to overcome America's isolationism. Popular figures like Charles Lindbergh spoke out against America's entry into the war, claiming that the American military was no match for the Nazis. A group called America First organized protests and rallies supporting isolationism. The anti-liberal elements of the Left also opposed American involvement, some on moral grounds, and some on the grounds that Hitler and Stalin had signed a Non-Aggression pact.

Roosevelt's Lend-Lease program and the country's first "peacetime" draft were met with fierce resistance. America was willing to get involved, as long as American lives were not at stake. Though he was able to muscle through sizable aid to the allies and prudent preparatory measures, Roosevelt was unable to change popular opinion on the subject of direct American involvement.

Then the Japanese attacked.

It was then and only then that Roosevelt really had the nation behind him.

The bitter political rivalries that had characterized the 3T did not evaporate until 1941, less than five years before the end of the Crisis. Up until that point America was quite divided on the issue. The shift in public opinion afterwards was so decisive that the Old Right would sputter and fail in short order, suffering its ultimate defeat with the nomination of Dwight D. Eisenhower--a moderate who trended towards liberalism--in 1952. The Old Right's isolationism was thoroughlt discredited, and America would, overwhelming, trust interventionist liberals until late in the Vietnam War. (When liberals would become increasingly less interventionist.)

Any thoughts?
Good post.

Well, many aspects of the last 3T's culture wars did wrap up early in 4T. For example Prohibition ended and the "Monkey Trial" type cultural conflict went into remission. Even in our isolationism America was fairly united. It is on economic issues that I think there was more controversy than Strauss & Howe care to recall. The key here is that "survival" became paramount, and that trumped any 3T nonsense.

Yet, as you note, isolationism was a trans-turning survivor and not weeded out by the switch to survival mode. Indeed, entry into another European war could have been interpreted as reminiscent of 3T adventurism and thus "nonsense" and a luxury society could not afford. As soon as the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and Hitler declard war on us, World War no longer seemed nonsensical and 3T, but essential to win and 4T in nature.

That's my quick take anyway.

This time 'round the closing of the Culture Wars will depend on whether or not the sides find a way to be self-contained, as the North and the South did in the Civil War cycle. This containment, or distinctiveness, doesn't necessarily have to be exclusively geographic, as the Spanish Civil War bears out.

As crazy as it sounds to me now, my T4T study does suggest to me that when a 4T mood kicks in, if the sides in the Culture Wars do not find a way to synthesize or otherwise desist, the survival mode aspect of the 4T mood may very well ratchet up the conflict to the level of civil war. Will Al Qaeda screw up that outcome (from their POV) and offer a uniting motif? God I hope so, if civil war is the alternative.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#8674 at 05-23-2004 12:14 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
05-23-2004, 12:14 PM #8674
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Re: Not oil but capitalism

Quote Originally Posted by Chris Seamans '75
Globalization is, primarily, a technological phenomenon.
No its not. It's a political thing. What enables globalization is faith that investments made abroad won't be confiscated for political reasons. Consider, the government of China is still officially Communist. Communist countries nationalized foreign investments in the past.

We believe those days are behind us. We believe that Red China will continue to support our government by continuing to buy huge quantities of US government paper. We believe this because we believe the Chinese government and people to be sensible, rational actors would could never in our wildest dreams engage in something as irrational as the Cultural Revolution.







Post#8675 at 05-23-2004 02:53 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
05-23-2004, 02:53 PM #8675
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Re: Not oil but capitalism

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
Quote Originally Posted by Chris Seamans '75
Globalization is, primarily, a technological phenomenon.
No its not. It's a political thing. What enables globalization is faith that investments made abroad won't be confiscated for political reasons. Consider, the government of China is still officially Communist. Communist countries nationalized foreign investments in the past.

We believe those days are behind us. We believe that Red China will continue to support our government by continuing to buy huge quantities of US government paper. We believe this because we believe the Chinese government and people to be sensible, rational actors would could never in our wildest dreams engage in something as irrational as the Cultural Revolution.
Who is 'we'? I never believed any such thing, and still don't.
-----------------------------------------