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 375







Post#9351 at 12-26-2004 10:51 PM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
12-26-2004, 10:51 PM #9351
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

Re: What now in Iraq?

Quote Originally Posted by Sabinius Invictus
Quote Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons
Quote Originally Posted by Sabinius Invictus
Quote Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons
Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2
If these guys were serious about running Iraq, much less Iran (populatoin 100 million), they would have massively expanded the Army years ago. They aren't. This Adminstration, in my opinion, is unwittingly leading us into isolationism, because the government-busting part of its coalition is actually much stronger than the Neocon faction. So four years from now we'll enjoy the worst of both worlds: a hostile Iraq, a small military, and a totally unfriendly world.[Emphasis Mine]
You could very well be right. Once we're destitute from the Dollar Crash, how the hell are we going to be able to project force? And will we be in any mind to? Would we respond to Islamofascism and nuclear proliferation with Fortress America?
Careful about discussing 'Fortress America' as an alternative, Sean. I tried it once, over a year ago, and had the Lefties down on my neck like a ton of bricks for daring to do so. Their preferred answer to your questions would be for us to turn over our national sovereignty, on all levels, to the UN, or else some other One World Government (preferably Socialist and/or 'Transnational Progressivist').

Aside from that, though, I for one would have no problem with 'Fortress America' isolationism. In fact, I firmly believe that 'Fortress America' will come to be our only truly viable course of action long before the coming 4T is over and done with, and will likely remain our only viable option for a long time afterwards. I just don't trust the Democrats to ever go the 'Fortress America' route, under any circumstances.
Note that I am not advocating for Fortress America, though under certain, horrible circumstances it would be the best policy, perhaps.

I was just saying that I think we will soon be in such an economic bind that our ability to project force will be seriously compromised. What choices do we have then?: Fortress America, international subordination, and nuclear brinkmanship. I doubt the second (your greatest fear) would come to pass at least in any extreme way, but who knows?
Ask some of your Leftie buddies which of the three they would prefer. I bet most of them would choose #2 (subordination) without any hesitation, as the only way to control the 'American Imperialist Monsters'. And any potential negative consequences that could flow from such an outcome they would just as quickly characterize as being our richly deserved collective punishment, for our multitude of national sins.
Just my $0.02...I'd first (far and away) choose Option #1, then if push ever comes to shove, #3.

#2 should never be an option, however we are, in effect, already doing just that by selling our industrial and technological infrastructure out to our future Crisis adversary, China.

Which means it isn't the Left who is selling America into submission, but the Right.







Post#9352 at 12-27-2004 08:28 AM by Tristan [at Melbourne, Australia joined Oct 2003 #posts 1,249]
---
12-27-2004, 08:28 AM #9352
Join Date
Oct 2003
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Posts
1,249

Evidence of a 3T

Michelle Malkin makes a comparison between how Hollywood reacted to WW2 (even before the USA?s entry into WW2, Hollywood was generally advocating America getting into the fight against the Nazi?s) and how it reacted to the war on terror. Very good evidence of a society still in a 3T, or Hollywood now has less of a US and more of a global focus (especially in places like Europe and the Middle East) than in did in the 1940's.


The lost patriots of Hollywood
Posted: June 23, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

? 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Once upon a time, there were people in Hollywood who loved America. And when America came under attack from enemies abroad, these actors, producers, screenwriters and directors put aside their partisan differences and created movies that ? unlike Michael Moore's new schlockumentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11" ? made all moviegoers proud to be Americans.

During World War II, Tinseltown roused the country's fighting spirit instead of trying to stifle it. In February 1941, the entertainment industry convened an extraordinary Academy Awards ceremony. The president of the Motion Picture Association, independent movie mogul and World War I pilot and intelligence officer Walter Wanger, went out of his way to use the Academy Award ceremony to support the war effort. Wanger invited President Roosevelt to address the crowd.

In an unprecedented radio speech simulcast on all three major networks at the time, FDR praised Hollywood for its wartime fundraising efforts and thanked filmmakers for "sanctifying the American way of life."

Can you imagine Hollywood extending such an invitation to President Bush today? Can you imagine CBS, ABC and NBC agreeing to simulcast such an event? And can you imagine the howling from the American Civil Liberties Union, ethnic groups, Barbra Streisand and Sean Penn if President Bush were allowed to appear at the Academy Awards to speak in support of "sanctifying the American way of life"?

The best actor award in 1942 went to Gary Cooper, for his morale-boosting performance as the deeply religious backwoods Tennessee Cumberland Mountains farmer and World War I hero Sergeant Alvin C. York in Howard Hawks' patriotic movie, "Sergeant York."

Can you imagine anyone in the entertainment industry (besides Mel Gibson) making a movie about a deeply religious backwoods farmer-turned-soldier today that didn't denigrate the character's born-again Christian background and conservative values?

Hollywood celebrities of the past didn't just play soldiers in front of the cameras. They volunteered to put their lives on the line for America. Clark Gable joined the Army Air Corps at 41, became a B-17 air gunner, and earned the Air Medal and Distinguished Flying Cross. Jimmy Stewart led B-24 bombing raids over Germany. They both appeared in pro-America documentaries, produced by the military-operated First Motion Picture Unit, when not in combat. Director Frank Capra made films for the U.S. government, including the seven-part "Why We Fight (1942-44)." Big-band leader Glenn Miller led the U.S. Army Air Force band in Europe and died for his country when his plane went down in the English Channel.

Can you imagine George Clooney putting down the basketball and picking up an M-4? Or Chris Rock and Jon Stewart cracking codes instead of jokes? Or Brad Pitt wearing combat boots for real combat instead of a Vanity Fair photo shoot? Or Spike Lee directing films defending the War on Terror? Or Eminem marching in step with the Army Air Force band?

Those who stayed behind during World War II starred in countless films ? "Action in the North Atlantic," "Arise, My Love," "All Through the Night," "Bataan," "The Battle of Midway," "Captains of the Clouds," "Desperate Journey," "Destination Tokyo," "Escape," "Flying Tigers," "Foreign Correspondent," "The Great Dictator," "Gung Ho!" "The Mortal Storm," "One of Our Aircraft Is Missing," "So Proudly We Hail!" "Wake Island," and "Yankee Doodle Dandy," to name just a few ? which rallied Americans through the long, dark days of the war to support the Allied cause. The movies depicted good and evil in stark terms. And there was no politically correct revisionism about who our enemies were.

By contrast, even tough-guy Arnold Schwarzenegger failed to stand up to Hollywood mushies who were afraid to depict Arab terrorists in his post-Sept. 11 movie, "Collateral Damage." Instead of encouraging Americans to confront the true face and nature of the Islamist threat, Schwarzenegger and his producers turned the Arab terrorists into Colombian terrorists so no one would complain about "racial profiling." Similarly, Steven Spielberg's new movie about an asylum-seeker, "The Terminal," indulges in weak-willed liberal escapism by demonizing Department of Homeland Security officials just trying to do their jobs.

Box-office patriotism is dead. And so I ask: If Hollywood refuses to support America, why should we support Hollywood?







Post#9353 at 12-27-2004 11:49 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
12-27-2004, 11:49 PM #9353
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: What now in Iraq?

Quote Originally Posted by lexpat
Quote Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons
The fact the capital flows have made such inroads since 1980 does not necessarily change the basics of history, just as unprecedented levels of trade in the Victorian and Edwardian periods did not..
Well Mr. Gibbons Love William Jennings Bryant M.A. (though perhaps they'd prefer Darrow), it's nice to know the "Basics of History" have been discovered in a Mountain View cubicle. What's up with that? Sort of like Mormons with their tablets? Reminds me of that interesting article quoted here by the Asian based economist at SBC; what was it you said? "I could refute each of these points if I had the time." Yeah, Right. I think you should be more interested in facts and less in theory, or at least admit you have no interest in facts (something Steve_55, my counterpart on your right, noted before bowing out).
My God man, I qualified with "does not necessarily", but that means it still could.

Steve_55 is an anal sphincter, but my impression is that you are certainly not, so your criticism is taken seriously. I agree that the quote above of mine is worthy of Hopeful Cynic himself, so I will elaborate.

My point was that in history fear will trump greed, and economic integration, whether it be in trade or currency, does not/ will not rid of us of the risk of war, or economic implosion (if the laws of economics are ignored).

In the very early 20th century nations experienced an unprecedented amount of trade flow, the likes of which the world had never seen. Conventional wisdom at the time stated that something like (the eventual) World War One was impossible as a result. Sure, nations like Britain and Germany played dreadnought games, but the elites in Britain, France, and the United States (if not necessarily Germany?) did not think great, protracted warfare was possible anymore for the type of reasons you allude to.

In the post-Bretton Woods world/Dollar Standard world, proportional trade is now even higher than then, even if you take intra-EU trade out of the picture. And as you have pointed out, currency flows are now also in absolutely unprecedented terrain.

But I would warn of two things.

One, the world has also never seen the imbalances, or at least the type of imbalances, it is seeing now. In the past, hegemonic economies would be stopped by gold outflows if they acted as we are now. But the "Dollar Standard" has given us (at least short-term) carte blanche to "create" wealth out of nothing. I argue that this will not stand.

Two, Prophet generations are about to take power in much of world and the social order created in and between our various societies in the last 4T is in serious disrepair. New values regimes are implanting and the Old Order is about to be swept away. Though I know you are not a Silent, I think it more in line with an Artist mentality to think that economic integration and commercial intercourse will avoid what the world experienced in 1914-1945 and 1776-1815 and at other times of 3T and 4T instability.

Now please note that I am not categorically discounting your opinion or your intelligence. I am just offerring a different opinion. I appreciate your input and would not want unnecesary hard feelings.
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#9354 at 12-27-2004 11:51 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
12-27-2004, 11:51 PM #9354
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: Evidence of a 3T

Quote Originally Posted by Tristan
Michelle Malkin makes a comparison between how Hollywood reacted to WW2 (even before the USA?s entry into WW2, Hollywood was generally advocating America getting into the fight against the Nazi?s) and how it reacted to the war on terror. Very good evidence of a society still in a 3T, or Hollywood now has less of a US and more of a global focus (especially in places like Europe and the Middle East) than in did in the 1940's.


The lost patriots of Hollywood
Posted: June 23, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

? 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Once upon a time, there were people in Hollywood who loved America. And when America came under attack from enemies abroad, these actors, producers, screenwriters and directors put aside their partisan differences and created movies that ? unlike Michael Moore's new schlockumentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11" ? made all moviegoers proud to be Americans.

During World War II, Tinseltown roused the country's fighting spirit instead of trying to stifle it. In February 1941, the entertainment industry convened an extraordinary Academy Awards ceremony. The president of the Motion Picture Association, independent movie mogul and World War I pilot and intelligence officer Walter Wanger, went out of his way to use the Academy Award ceremony to support the war effort. Wanger invited President Roosevelt to address the crowd.

In an unprecedented radio speech simulcast on all three major networks at the time, FDR praised Hollywood for its wartime fundraising efforts and thanked filmmakers for "sanctifying the American way of life."

Can you imagine Hollywood extending such an invitation to President Bush today? Can you imagine CBS, ABC and NBC agreeing to simulcast such an event? And can you imagine the howling from the American Civil Liberties Union, ethnic groups, Barbra Streisand and Sean Penn if President Bush were allowed to appear at the Academy Awards to speak in support of "sanctifying the American way of life"?

The best actor award in 1942 went to Gary Cooper, for his morale-boosting performance as the deeply religious backwoods Tennessee Cumberland Mountains farmer and World War I hero Sergeant Alvin C. York in Howard Hawks' patriotic movie, "Sergeant York."

Can you imagine anyone in the entertainment industry (besides Mel Gibson) making a movie about a deeply religious backwoods farmer-turned-soldier today that didn't denigrate the character's born-again Christian background and conservative values?

Hollywood celebrities of the past didn't just play soldiers in front of the cameras. They volunteered to put their lives on the line for America. Clark Gable joined the Army Air Corps at 41, became a B-17 air gunner, and earned the Air Medal and Distinguished Flying Cross. Jimmy Stewart led B-24 bombing raids over Germany. They both appeared in pro-America documentaries, produced by the military-operated First Motion Picture Unit, when not in combat. Director Frank Capra made films for the U.S. government, including the seven-part "Why We Fight (1942-44)." Big-band leader Glenn Miller led the U.S. Army Air Force band in Europe and died for his country when his plane went down in the English Channel.

Can you imagine George Clooney putting down the basketball and picking up an M-4? Or Chris Rock and Jon Stewart cracking codes instead of jokes? Or Brad Pitt wearing combat boots for real combat instead of a Vanity Fair photo shoot? Or Spike Lee directing films defending the War on Terror? Or Eminem marching in step with the Army Air Force band?

Those who stayed behind during World War II starred in countless films ? "Action in the North Atlantic," "Arise, My Love," "All Through the Night," "Bataan," "The Battle of Midway," "Captains of the Clouds," "Desperate Journey," "Destination Tokyo," "Escape," "Flying Tigers," "Foreign Correspondent," "The Great Dictator," "Gung Ho!" "The Mortal Storm," "One of Our Aircraft Is Missing," "So Proudly We Hail!" "Wake Island," and "Yankee Doodle Dandy," to name just a few ? which rallied Americans through the long, dark days of the war to support the Allied cause. The movies depicted good and evil in stark terms. And there was no politically correct revisionism about who our enemies were.

By contrast, even tough-guy Arnold Schwarzenegger failed to stand up to Hollywood mushies who were afraid to depict Arab terrorists in his post-Sept. 11 movie, "Collateral Damage." Instead of encouraging Americans to confront the true face and nature of the Islamist threat, Schwarzenegger and his producers turned the Arab terrorists into Colombian terrorists so no one would complain about "racial profiling." Similarly, Steven Spielberg's new movie about an asylum-seeker, "The Terminal," indulges in weak-willed liberal escapism by demonizing Department of Homeland Security officials just trying to do their jobs.

Box-office patriotism is dead. And so I ask: If Hollywood refuses to support America, why should we support Hollywood?
Malkin is a Kool-Aid drinking automaton, but that doesn't mean she can't ocassionally make a good point or two as she does here.
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#9355 at 12-28-2004 12:49 AM by lexpat [at joined May 2004 #posts 87]
---
12-28-2004, 12:49 AM #9355
Join Date
May 2004
Posts
87

Re: What now in Iraq?

Quote Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons
My God man, I qualified with "does not necessarily", but that means it still could.
Yes you did, and I apologize for overreacting

Quote Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons
In the very early 20th century nations experienced an unprecedented amount of trade flow, the likes of which the world had never seen. Conventional wisdom at the time stated that something like (the eventual) World War One was impossible as a result. Sure, nations like Britain and Germany played dreadnought games, but the elites in Britain, France, and the United States (if not necessarily Germany?) did not think great, protracted warfare was possible anymore for the type of reasons you allude to.

In the post-Bretton Woods world/Dollar Standard world, proportional trade is now even higher than then, even if you take intra-EU trade out of the picture. And as you have pointed out, currency flows are now also in absolutely unprecedented terrain.

But I would warn of two things.

One, the world has also never seen the imbalances, or at least the type of imbalances, it is seeing now. In the past, hegemonic economies would be stopped by gold outflows if they acted as we are now. But the "Dollar Standard" has given us (at least short-term) carte blanche to "create" wealth out of nothing. I argue that this will not stand.

Two, Prophet generations are about to take power in much of world and the social order created in and between our various societies in the last 4T is in serious disrepair. New values regimes are implanting and the Old Order is about to be swept away. Though I know you are not a Silent, I think it more in line with an Artist mentality to think that economic integration and commercial intercourse will avoid what the world experienced in 1914-1945 and 1776-1815 and at other times of 3T and 4T instability.
First of all: Yes, in the past we all would have been 'crucified upon a cross of gold,' as your mentor - I think - once said in a different context. All I'm saying is that in my opinion conflict is less likely to arise as a result of economic conflict between countries than as a result of a populist, anti-internationalist sentiment that comes from what is thought to be an unfair distribution of wealth within a country. (The McWorld vs. Jihad notion).

Second, last year saw the greatest reduction in poverty (worldwide) in history. In Asia, more peoples lives are improving right now than ever before. I'm not much one for truisms in History, but one I suspect is spot on is that when expectations are heightened and then denied, there is trouble. Expectations have really been heightened over here, and were there indeed a Prophet gen in power and a bunch of Heroes ready to follow them I'd be worried. But in fact in China and Vietnam I think you have an Awakening going on. The prophets are young. They would be very, very resistant to anything anti-international that their elders tried to foist on them. Even if their economies cease to grow, I don't think they'd support a return to nationalism.

Third, I'm just of the opinion that The Turnings are anAnglo-American deal and the crisis will be domestic...We're too interconnected now for the libertarian/conservative vision of Seadogs on boats and Minnesota farmers to be anything but a lovely dream...







Post#9356 at 12-28-2004 03:56 AM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
12-28-2004, 03:56 AM #9356
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: What now in Iraq?

Quote Originally Posted by lexpat
Quote Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons
My God man, I qualified with "does not necessarily", but that means it still could.
Yes you did, and I apologize for overreacting
Forget it.

Quote Originally Posted by lexpat
Quote Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons
In the very early 20th century nations experienced an unprecedented amount of trade flow, the likes of which the world had never seen. Conventional wisdom at the time stated that something like (the eventual) World War One was impossible as a result. Sure, nations like Britain and Germany played dreadnought games, but the elites in Britain, France, and the United States (if not necessarily Germany?) did not think great, protracted warfare was possible anymore for the type of reasons you allude to.

In the post-Bretton Woods world/Dollar Standard world, proportional trade is now even higher than then, even if you take intra-EU trade out of the picture. And as you have pointed out, currency flows are now also in absolutely unprecedented terrain.

But I would warn of two things.

One, the world has also never seen the imbalances, or at least the type of imbalances, it is seeing now. In the past, hegemonic economies would be stopped by gold outflows if they acted as we are now. But the "Dollar Standard" has given us (at least short-term) carte blanche to "create" wealth out of nothing. I argue that this will not stand.

Two, Prophet generations are about to take power in much of world and the social order created in and between our various societies in the last 4T is in serious disrepair. New values regimes are implanting and the Old Order is about to be swept away. Though I know you are not a Silent, I think it more in line with an Artist mentality to think that economic integration and commercial intercourse will avoid what the world experienced in 1914-1945 and 1776-1815 and at other times of 3T and 4T instability.
First of all: Yes, in the past we all would have been 'crucified upon a cross of gold,' as your mentor - I think - once said in a different context. All I'm saying is that in my opinion conflict is less likely to arise as a result of economic conflict between countries than as a result of a populist, anti-internationalist sentiment that comes from what is thought to be an unfair distribution of wealth within a country. (The McWorld vs. Jihad notion).
Okay. So you're saying that a "Seattle" type, international anti-Globalization movement operating country-by-country is the main concern regarding large-scale economic problems?

I may not have gotten that right, but assuming I have I must say that what I see coming can have little to do with "economic conflict". I see the stage set for a global ecnomic meltdown that will hit the United States and China particularly hard that has nothing to do fundamentally with trade wars, national or international populism, or even real, hot warfare.

Quote Originally Posted by lexpat
Second, last year saw the greatest reduction in poverty (worldwide) in history. In Asia, more peoples lives are improving right now than ever before.
But if that prosperity is being based on a de facto ponzi scheme of dollar production it is emphemeral.

Quote Originally Posted by lexpat
I'm not much one for truisms in History, but one I suspect is spot on is that when expectations are heightened and then denied, there is trouble. Expectations have really been heightened over here, and were there indeed a Prophet gen in power and a bunch of Heroes ready to follow them I'd be worried.
That touches on another concern I mentioned, indeed.

Quote Originally Posted by lexpat
But in fact in China and Vietnam I think you have an Awakening going on. The prophets are young. They would be very, very resistant to anything anti-international that their elders tried to foist on them. Even if their economies cease to grow, I don't think they'd support a return to nationalism.
I don't know about Vietnam, but most posters here think that China's last 4T was apx. 1925-1950 and that they've been 3T now for a decade or two. Chances are they are only about half a dozen years "behind us" (or out of synch in one direction, if one prefers) saecularly.

Quote Originally Posted by lexpat
Third, I'm just of the opinion that The Turnings are anAnglo-American deal and the crisis will be domestic...We're too interconnected now for the libertarian/conservative vision of Seadogs on boats and Minnesota farmers to be anything but a lovely dream...
The saecular cycle is probably more intense in America than elsewhere (for reasons S&H discuss), but I think it has operated in at least in an at least muted form in every society since the dawn of civilization.

I am more in line (on this topic) with John Xenakis that one of the great issues of our time are all of these saecular cycles harmonizing with one another. In that sense, integration means a greater chance for 4T conflict globally than less.
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#9357 at 12-28-2004 11:35 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
12-28-2004, 11:35 AM #9357
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Discussion on 3T vs 4T

For the last year and a half I have been writing articles (and getting paid for them) for an online financial publication, 21st Century Investors. Prior to that I wrote for free online sites like Safehaven. 21st century has dropped my column, probably because of low response, I have received less than 5% of the e-mail traffic generated from my previous free-site articles suggesting my readership is less than 5% of what I had then. Since 21st century is an (expensive) paid content site, the audience amongst 21st Century subscribers is far smaller than that available on free sites like Safehaven or Gold Eagle. Based on click-through rates to my webpage over 2002-2002, I estimated that only a few percent of investors are interested in historical analyses of the type I provide--I am not a market technician and do no technical analysis. Thus, I could estimate that my audience at 21st Century must have amounted to only a few dozen. Only a few sent e-mails and none of them bought my third book, available only through 21st Century and priced at a ridiculous $79.

I expected to be dropped long ago, but as long as they were paying me far more than I could make from book sales, I wasn't going to complain about my book being essentially unavailable. I was also contractually prevented from writing books or articles on financial or economic topics for others while I was writing for them. To try to continue to promote my other work, I wrote a fourth book on political cycles (a contractually-permitted topic) which I started to promote on Safehaven. One of the things I talk about in the book is Social Security privatization and I wrote this article as a promotional piece, which has apparently sunk without a trace--no e-mails, nothing. I am not sure cycles have anything useful to say about politics and I am not sure how far I am going to pursue political issues, now that I am again free to write on economics and finance.

Now that 21st Century has dropped my column, I am publishing my third book through iUniverse in paperback, like my other three books. It should be priced in the $16-19 range, much less than $79 and I should, at minimum, be able to sell enough to recoup the $600 publishing cost. In either case I will be able to deduct publishing costs for this year as I will have plenty of writing income for 2004.

It's two years later and several things have not happened. I introduced the concept of reduced price in a 2001 article. I used it to support the idea from the Stock Cycle that a Kondratiev downwave had begun shortly after 1980 and won't end for at least a decade. In particular I called for a continued decline in the reduced price in the future:

Although our analysis of the Kondratiev cycle shows that we have a decade or more of downwave left, all this tells us is that reduced price will fall from the levels today to a second trough. What could easily happen is stimulus could sharply increase, like it did in the 1940's. This would result in falling reduced prices even though actual inflation might increase from today's level. The very rapid reduction in the Federal Funds rate and President Bush's much touted tax cut could combine to send stimulation sharply upward in the coming years, producing strong "deflation" in the reduced price measure without the same in actual prices.

Now stimulation has risen, due to deficit spending, but money supply growth has been more tepid, so stimulation has not soared as fast as it did in the 1980's. Futhermore, commodity prices (especially oil) have risen dramatically--which they did not do in the 1980's. As a result, reduced price has not fallen from the generally flat region where is has been since the mid-1980's. Right now the minimum value in reduced price was reached in Dec 2001.

I noted this in another article in spring 2002:

In my spring 2001 article, I suggested that if the interpretation given by historical reduced prices is correct, the stock market peak in 2000 should be equivalent cycle-wise to that of 1929, and that we were getting ready to "fall off the plateau" in terms of reduced prices. I wrote this "interpretation suggests that reduced prices should peak soon, very possibly this year." At that time I presented data up to the end of 1999 and as of that date the trend in reduced price was upwards. As Figure 1 shows, the trend in reduced price began to fall early in 2001 and as of last December (as late as I have data as of this writing) reduced price has fallen to the lowest level of the post-1981 downwave. Figure 1 suggests that we almost "fell off the plateau" in 1998 but the Fed was able to push the economy back up for a couple of years by deftly-timed rate cuts. This time, after a year of rate cuts, reduced price has continued to fall. It seems less and less likely that Chairman Greenspan will succeed a second time at holding Kondratiev winter at bay.

At this point it certainly appeared that we had started to "fall off of the plateau" in early 2001. Not only that, but 911 looked like it might be a crisis trigger. In my second book The Kondratiev Cycle, I advanced the idea that the Kondratiev Cycle and the saeculum are aligned, and that "Kondratiev winter", which begins with the fall from plateau in the reduced price chart, was aligned with "saecular winter" (the 4T). Hence 2001 looked pregnant with possibility: the start of a secular bear market indicating the start of Kondratiev Winter, an apparently falling reduced price that also argues for the start of K-winter, and what certainly looked like a crisis trigger event. Finally, subsequent to 911 (and possibly because of it) there was a sharp change in the trend in government spending indicative of the start of a new liberal political era. Liberal political eras have been roughly aligned with social moment turnings since 1820.

So it looked like a slam dunk case for a 3T/4T break in 2001. But the subsequent trend in reduced price has not supported the idea that K-winter began in 2001. On the other hand, the Stock Cycle has been quite valid. Here I forecast that the October 2002 low in the market was "low enough" to be the bottom of the first bear market of the saecular bear market than started in 2000. I had previously pointed out that the lows in 2002 were probably going to be good spots for buying and I noted I was increasing my stock allocation in my 401(k). Subsequent event have validated this forecast, providing a second real-time verification that the Stock Cycle works.

So I have one definite "vote" for the start of K-winter/4T. Since 1802, the Stock Cycle and the K-cycle have been aligned in the US in a way that forecasts that start of K-winter in around 2000. But reduced price has not voted for winter, but rather a continuation of fall. In saecular terms, the Stock Cycle says 4T and reduced prices says 3T. It's been three years now since the 2001 trough in reduced price. Even if reduced price does fall below that trough in future years (which is quite possible) the beginning of that decline will come after 2001. In other words the start of the fall from plateau would begin from some point after 2004, putting the earliest date for the start of K-winter (and the 4T) by this measure in 2004 at the earliest (assuming oil prices continue to decline into 2005).

911 by itself is meaningless cycle-wise. We won't have a direct assessment of the 3T/4T split using only saecular arguments for probably a decade or more. So the saeculum cannot help us here--note the difference of opinion on this topic at this site if you don't believe me.

Politics is some help. Using a fixed cycle approach, I forecast that 2004 would be a critical election more than a decade ago. What are critical elections? Well, they tend to be hard fought over major issues and they have a lot of turnout. But most importantly, they resolve political direction for the next decade or two. The first two are certainly true of 2004. The jury is still out on the third issue. However I would suggest that if the GOP doesn't lose seats in Congress in 2006, which they should, then this would confirm that the GOP has achieved a dominance sufficient to take policy in their direction, fulfilling the third criterion and confirming 2004 as a critical election. In either case, a healthy GOP victory in 2008 will confirm it. On the other hand, if 2006 shows significant GOP losses and 2008 is another nail biter, then this would make 2004 a noncritical election and make 2008 a candidate for criticality.

Now the 2004 results support the trend toward increasing GOP dominance proposed by Marc Lamb in 2002. Interestingly, had the 4T landslide predicted by Marc occurred it would destroy his view that we be 3T. Such a landslide would be a confirmation of the narrow GOP victory in 2000 and thus make 2000 a critical election. Since critical elections have, without exception, always occurred during social moments, this would make E2K the 4T trigger, consistent with the Stock Cycle forecast.

However the landslide did not materialize, and 2000 is thus removed from consideration as a potential critical election. If the trend in GOP political gains continues, the 2008 will be a GOP victory that is not close and that will make 2004 a critical election and right on schedule I would add.

This makes 2004 the latest the 4T could start, if past correlations hold (assuming the GOP does well in 2006 and 2008). And if past correlations don't hold then we might as well scrap the saeculum since that is based on past correlations. However this carries another requirement. If the Bush victory is a critical election then we should see some softening in commodity prices, particularly oil, so reduced price can start falling.

Thus, if a dollar crash happens, then this also means 2004 isn't a critical election, and in 2008 either a Democrat will win, or a Republican expressing a radically different direction from what Bush has offered. Now this can happen, of course, but I notice that those forecasting this tend to be Kerry partisans and those who discount it tend to be Bush partisans. Since facts themselves are neutral, yet partisan thinking apparently influences how one interprets the facts, I lean toward the idea of a coming crisis as being at least partly partisan.

A better example of this is the "Bush as GC" meme that I floated a while back. Baring tragedy, Bush will be president in 2008. If the 4T did begin in 2001, this means that turnings are 18 years long and that Bush will be president 7/18's of the way into a 4T. In previous crises, major political leaders of the Prophet archetype that are in power 40% of the way into the turning are considered GCs. With the 2004 election victory, Bush will be a Prophet in power 40% of the way into a Crisis (assuming it began in 2001) and so would have to be a GC. The only way that Bush cannot be a GC would be if the Crisis began later than 2001.

Those of us on my side of the political aisle don't like the Bush as GC meme. And until Nov 2, we could simultaneously hold the idea that Bush is not a GC, yet the crisis began in 2001. All that would be necessary would be for Bush to lose--which most of us Kerry partisans believed to be possible--even likely. So if our guy had won, the idea that 2001 was the crisis trigger would be easy to sell. If would make 2004 a much more likely critical election because it would be close and the incumbent lost. It would make the idea that a liberal era began in 2001 easy to see since Kerry was widely considered as a liberal.

Since Kerry did not win then the idea that the crisis is still in the future becomes superficially more plausible and those that abhor the Bush as GC meme will find favor with it. But the saeculum does not play political favorites. A GC can be from either party, a liberal Democrat (FDR) or a big business Republican (Lincoln). What makes them a GC is the times they live in and the policies those times force upon them. A leader unwilling to adjust his ideology to the times will not be a GC (e.g. Hoover).

Has George Bush continued the policies wrt to terrorism established by the Reagan administration and continued on by the Bush and Clinton administrations? Or has he radically departed? Whereas Reagan did not invade Lebanon after the Beirut tragedy and embraced Saddam Hussein as a means to put pressure in the Iranian backers of the Beirut bombers, Bush has largely ignored the backers of 911 and instead invaded Iraq in an effort to change the political backdrop that generates terrorism. In other words, instead of a measured police approach with sanctions employed by Reagan, Bush I and Clinton that treats terrorism as criminal activity to be suppressed (the conservative approach) Bush II has bought into the idea that terrorists are not deviants, that terrorism is the natural result of the lack of democracy in the Muslim world.

Thus, killing or locking up the miscreants (the traditional conservative approach to antisocial behavior) is replaced by a War on Terror in which Democracy is instituted by government fiat as a means to eliminate the underlying causes of terrorism. It is akin to the War on Poverty, that held by use of government power to eliminate want, the crime caused by the conditions of growing up in poverty will be eliminated. This is clearly a progressive view of the problem, even though its proponents style themselves neoconservatives.

Not only that, but the president is touting an expensive "new deal" for the American people, the ownership society. Gone is the rhetoric "the problem is government". Gone from power are those on the Right who believed that the triumph of their side would see the dismantling of "big government". No, it was Bill Clinton who proclaimed that the era of big government was over. His side lost in 2000 and again in 2004. Big Government is Back under the new management; it will simply be redirected towards a different agenda.







Post#9358 at 12-28-2004 11:58 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
12-28-2004, 11:58 AM #9358
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Mike:

I'm sorry to read about 21st Century. I hope your paperback sells well.

A GC can be from either party, a liberal Democrat (FDR) or a big business Republican (Lincoln). What makes them a GC is the times they live in and the policies those times force upon them. A leader unwilling to adjust his ideology to the times will not be a GC (e.g. Hoover).
When I'm feeling particularly cynical, I start to see the Grey Champion as kind of a Time's "Person of the Year" on a grand scale. So if Bush can be 2004's Person of the Year, he can certainly be the Grey Champion for this Crisis (though in his case it might be more along the lines of "Grey Chump." :lol: ).

From my perspective, Bush shows no sign that he understands the coming Crisis, nor that he is making any adjustments to his basic ideology. This is a man with no self-doubt. He believes he has a mandate from the American voters, and he will push for his agenda as strongly as he believes he can get away with.

Fasten your seat belts, folks. 2005 is almost here, and this may indeed be Year Zero as Strauss and Howe have predicted.







Post#9359 at 12-28-2004 12:53 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
12-28-2004, 12:53 PM #9359
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
From my perspective, Bush shows no sign that he understands the coming Crisis, nor that he is making any adjustments to his basic ideology.
But yes he has. He doesn't share your vision of the Crisis, but it is a break from the approach of the past. Consider Beruit. Hundreds of Americans murdered. Reagan could have sent the Marines into Lebanon--instead they went to Grenada to change the subject. Reagan tried both the stick (Rumsfeld in Iraq) and the carrot (Iran arms deal) to deal with the principal supporter of terrorists.

Now look what Bush did. He invaded Afganistan and installed a puppet government. He did not put pressure on the Wahabbi backers of al Qaeda. If Bush had copied Reagan, he would have sent Rumsfled to India. Now it is quite likely Bush felt he had little choice--this is the point, the conditions often force adjustments to behavior. Had Bush stubbornly insisted on playing Reagan II, he might have gotten us in a much bigger mess than we are now and have lost in 2004--and so he would be no GC.

Instead he turned to progressive idealists (neoconservatives) rather than conservative realists (his father's men) for guidance. They advocated a radical agenda of installing democracy in the Middle East. This is not a conservative vision. For generations, conservatives have been favorably inclined to using US power to keep right wing dictators in power in Latin American and elsewhere. In general, the US sought regime change in left-leaning democracies, in order to turn them into right wing dictatorships. Progressives maintain this is wrongheaded. Dictators start wars, democracies don't. If you want world peace you should promote democracies everywhere. And this has been the trend. Today conventional war between major states doesn't occur, and the non-US great powers are largely demilitarized--they feel no threats from any other country. The sole remaining military power is incredibly dominant with a relatively small military expenditure.

So it worked, as far as formal wars go. Of course there were still a lot of brush wars in Africa and elsewhere. Progressives advocated that advanced nations mount efforts to reduce genocide and stop wars. This happened under centrist presidents in the 1990's with the Gulf War, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo.

As a conservative Bush didn't favor nation building efforts. Americans were not directly affected by the conflict in those places so why should American blood or treasure be spend there?

But after 911, Bush changed his mind. Today the US is involved in an nation building effort at a scale that dwarfs anything Clinton or Bush I did. Although Bush tried to put a conservative spin on his Iraq war, claiming the US needed to prevent Iraqi WMDs from being used against the US, this fell apart when no WMDs were found. Furthermore, no effort was made to secure Iraq weapons during the invasion, so if WMDs had been there they could have fallen into terrorist hands as a result of US policy. Since US forces were given orders not to secure Iraqi weapons at a time when the adminstration believed Iraq had WMDs, it is clear that they did not believe that Iraq WMDs posed a significant threat to the US.

The objective now seems to have been installation of a democratic government in Iraq from the very start. Perhaps the choice of "Iraqi Freedom" as the name of the operation (compare to "Desert Storm") means something. In other words, Bush did buy into the progressive vision on terrorism--a radical departure from his former conservative views.

Of course the means selected to advance this progressive goal are necessarily more muscular than what self-described (i.e. leftist) progressives would favor. A Republican is going to use force (a hard image) in pursuit of a progressive goal to counter the squishy image of progressivism.







Post#9360 at 12-28-2004 03:48 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
12-28-2004, 03:48 PM #9360
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Hard Progressives

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
The objective now seems to have been installation of a democratic government in Iraq from the very start. Perhaps the choice of "Iraqi Freedom" as the name of the operation (compare to "Desert Storm") means something. In other words, Bush did buy into the progressive vision on terrorism--a radical departure from his former conservative views.

Of course the means selected to advance this progressive goal are necessarily more muscular than what self-described (i.e. leftist) progressives would favor. A Republican is going to use force (a hard image) in pursuit of a progressive goal to counter the squishy image of progressivism.
As y'all should have figured by now, my perspective is of a long term evolution in human culture. Authoritarian, agricultural, religious, conservative cultures are transforming into democratic, industrial, secular progressive. This process has been slow and painful. In the West, the process might have started with the Protestant / Catholic conflict. The next phase was more revolutionary, with the English and American Civil Wars, the American and French Revolutions. There was then some imperialistic wars, from the Napoleonic through World War I, as the old royalist governments slowly lost influence to the more modern capitalist / democratic style. World War II saw fascist governments become unfashionable. The Cold War muted the power of Communism.

It seems clear we are in another phase shift. Communism was 'defeated' with a policy of containment. The Communists had the potential to launch military offensives, either overtly with the Soviet Army crashing into Europe, or through proxy revolutions. The current 'foes' of democracy, not yet assimilated (resistance is futile, you will be assimilated) have no similar capability. As the Cold War was stetted through proxy wars and economic competition, it seems unlikely that the next level of conflict can be settled on a conventional battlefield with front lines, artillery, tanks and air support.

There seem to be two fronts in the new conflict. The first is Islam. Of the various 'civilizations,' Islam has to date resisted Western / Industrial influence as effectively as any. They have had a recent religious awakening. They have not yet had a crisis to implement the new values of the awakening. Their governments and economies are still autocratic and agricultural. This cannot be sustained. They must in time transform themselves. The autocratic regimes have little motivation to phase themselves out of power.

The second front is ethnic. In many parts of the world, rich ethnic and / or religious minorities with political and/or economic clout dominate poor native minorities. Potentially, capitalism emperors the dominant minority, while democracy empowers the oppressed majority. This tension takes many forms. Saddam's Sunni minority just didn't bother with democracy. Still, in places like Somalia, the Balkans, East Timor, and the Sudan, such conflicts have caused meltdowns. We have seen ethnic cleansing, genocide, organized rape, and politically induced famine.

The Islamic and ethnic fronts are not totally unrelated, but any analysis needs both perspectives.

Clinton attempted to address the ethnic front. He was building towards an international consensus that when major human rights violations generate a collapse, international intervention is proper. His vision wasn't too far from the Cold War 'containment' policy. He wasn't looking to actively intervene in 3rd world countries, to force progress aggressively, but he would not tolerate crimes against humanity. In the long term, a containment policy with intervention only if society totally breaks down seems a proper response to the ethnic front.

Bush 43 is more focused towards the Islamic front. Even before the September 11th attacks, the New American Century report advocated a shift in American military emphasis towards stabilizing the Middle East along terms favorable to the United States. I can best make sense of the policy if I assume the oil is important. A shift from a fossil fuel economy to a post fossil future cannot occur without a stable Middle East friendly towards the developed countries. However, Bush 43 can't say that. He can't say "We need to install a puppet regime that will sell oil cheap on the dollar." He can talk about spreading democracy and containing WMDs. Still, there is talk, and there is action. Did the army have orders to search for and secure weapons, to establish peace and security, or to guard the oil fields?

To me, sending in an army to transform a culture is problematic. One cannot teach ethnic acceptance at bayonet point. I would consider the Yankee's attempt to reconstruct the South after the US Civil War as a normal result. They Yankees ended up going home with the job not half done. Yes, the US did convince the Germans and Japanese that war of aggression is a bad idea, but that was done more during the fighting than after.

To me, the question is whether use of military force as a tool for seeking economic and political advantage is cost effective. The US is spending far more on the capability to project force than anyone else. Can this force be used in a constructive and/or profitable way, or is it only apt to attract responses similar to 9.11? Should we lean towards containment, leaving the unassimilated autocratic regimes alone if at all possible, or does a more aggressive unilateral preemptive posture make sense. We can clearly win conventional wars against countries much smaller than we are, but occupying such countries takes our entire military potential, and the difficulty in transforming such countries must not be underestimated.

Which gets me back to the question as to whether Bush is progressive. I'm dubious. Radical, maybe. He is implementing a foreign policy which is a distinct break from the past. He is talking a 'progressive' game, in advocating democracy. Alas, I believe this progressive goal is a false mask for old fashioned use of military force to acquire an economic zone of influence. This isn't progressive, but down right reactionary.

But more worrisome is an underlying theme that 'progressive' means 'soft.' 'Progressive' means taking the establishment down a notch, spreading the wealth and power better with the downtrodden. Fourth Turnings are times for progressives, but they are never soft. It is never easy.







Post#9361 at 12-28-2004 05:13 PM by scott 63 [at Birmingham joined Sep 2001 #posts 697]
---
12-28-2004, 05:13 PM #9361
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Birmingham
Posts
697

Year Zero?

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Fasten your seat belts, folks. 2005 is almost here, and this may indeed be Year Zero as Strauss and Howe have predicted.
Did S&H predict 2005 or just that "year zero" would come... eventually?

If the former, I would be interested in reading it.







Post#9362 at 12-28-2004 05:24 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
12-28-2004, 05:24 PM #9362
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Re: Year Zero?

Quote Originally Posted by scott '63
Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Fasten your seat belts, folks. 2005 is almost here, and this may indeed be Year Zero as Strauss and Howe have predicted.
Did S&H predict 2005 or just that "year zero" would come... eventually?

If the former, I would be interested in reading it.
I don't have my book in front of me at the moment. But this chart tentatively puts the end of this 3T "Culture Wars" period at 2005.







Post#9363 at 12-28-2004 05:26 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
12-28-2004, 05:26 PM #9363
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: Discussion on 3T vs 4T

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
For the last year and a half I have been writing articles (and getting paid for them) for an online financial publication, 21st Century Investors. Prior to that I wrote for free online sites like Safehaven. 21st century has dropped my column . . .
Sorry to hear about that Mike. But this is good news in the bigger picture, isn't it? Weren't they keepin' you down in a way?


Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
. . . Now stimulation has risen, due to deficit spending, but money supply growth has been more tepid, so stimulation has not soared as fast as it did in the 1980's . . .
Is that really the case?

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
In saecular terms, the Stock Cycle says 4T and reduced prices says 3T. It's been three years now since the 2001 trough in reduced price.
Welcome to the Phony Fourth.

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
So the saeculum cannot help us here--note the difference of opinion on this topic at this site if you don't believe me.
What ever are you talking about? :wink:

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
. . . Thus, if a dollar crash happens, then this also means 2004 isn't a critical election, and in 2008 either a Democrat will win, or a Republican expressing a radically different direction from what Bush has offered.
We're going over a cliff baby. And Captain "Faith-Based" Ahab is going to take us there.

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
Now this can happen, of course, but I notice that those forecasting this tend to be Kerry partisans and those who discount it tend to be Bush partisans. Since facts themselves are neutral, yet partisan thinking apparently influences how one interprets the facts, I lean toward the idea of a coming crisis as being at least partly partisan.
Very interesting, Mike. One of the books I'm reading right now is The Cousins' Wars by Kevin Phillips. It's like an Albion's Seed II (too bad David Hackett Fischer hadn't thought about it). Though I don't think Phillips intends to, he gives us some indication of what a new structural civic struggle would encompass.

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
A better example of this is the "Bush as GC" meme that I floated a while back. Baring tragedy, Bush will be president in 2008.
Well, there's still time for Tecumseh's Curse.

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
. . . A leader unwilling to adjust his ideology to the times will not be a GC (e.g. Hoover) . . .
Or a Stuart king, or a Jefferson Davis? :wink:

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
Has George Bush continued the policies wrt to terrorism established by the Reagan administration and continued on by the Bush and Clinton administrations? Or has he radically departed? Whereas Reagan did not invade Lebanon after the Beirut tragedy and embraced Saddam Hussein as a means to put pressure in the Iranian backers of the Beirut bombers, Bush has largely ignored the backers of 911 and instead invaded Iraq in an effort to change the political backdrop that generates terrorism. In other words, instead of a measured police approach with sanctions employed by Reagan, Bush I and Clinton that treats terrorism as criminal activity to be suppressed (the conservative approach) Bush II has bought into the idea that terrorists are not deviants, that terrorism is the natural result of the lack of democracy in the Muslim world.

Thus, killing or locking up the miscreants (the traditional conservative approach to antisocial behavior) is replaced by a War on Terror in which Democracy is instituted by government fiat as a means to eliminate the underlying causes of terrorism. It is akin to the War on Poverty, that held by use of government power to eliminate want, the crime caused by the conditions of growing up in poverty will be eliminated. This is clearly a progressive view of the problem, even though its proponents style themselves neoconservatives.

Not only that, but the president is touting an expensive "new deal" for the American people, the ownership society. Gone is the rhetoric "the problem is government". Gone from power are those on the Right who believed that the triumph of their side would see the dismantling of "big government". No, it was Bill Clinton who proclaimed that the era of big government was over. His side lost in 2000 and again in 2004. Big Government is Back under the new management; it will simply be redirected towards a different agenda.
Your analysis if very interesting as always.
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#9364 at 12-28-2004 05:28 PM by scott 63 [at Birmingham joined Sep 2001 #posts 697]
---
12-28-2004, 05:28 PM #9364
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Birmingham
Posts
697

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
When I'm feeling particularly cynical, I start to see the Grey Champion as kind of a Time's "Person of the Year" on a grand scale. So if Bush can be 2004's Person of the Year, he can certainly be the Grey Champion for this Crisis (though in his case it might be more along the lines of "Grey Chump." :lol: ).

From my perspective, Bush shows no sign that he understands the coming Crisis, nor that he is making any adjustments to his basic ideology. This is a man with no self-doubt. He believes he has a mandate from the American voters, and he will push for his agenda as strongly as he believes he can get away with.
Seems to me that the GC doesn't change idealogy - everyone else changes to accomodate his. 90% of GC life is standing in the right place and having something radical to say. Remember, when institutions have unravelled sufficiently to trigger a 4T, society is ready for just about anything different - the more radical the better. FDR was nothing if not radical and not all his ideas were good ones.

W surely qualifies as GC in the cajones department. As described by Nicholas Lemann in the "Choice 2004" (PBS - 10/2004), W views himself as a "Transformational President." He may never have read a book in his life, let alone Generations, but in his gut he understands Crisis. That may be all he understands, God bless him.







Post#9365 at 12-28-2004 05:52 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
12-28-2004, 05:52 PM #9365
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: Hard Progressives

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54
Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
The objective now seems to have been installation of a democratic government in Iraq from the very start. Perhaps the choice of "Iraqi Freedom" as the name of the operation (compare to "Desert Storm") means something. In other words, Bush did buy into the progressive vision on terrorism--a radical departure from his former conservative views.

Of course the means selected to advance this progressive goal are necessarily more muscular than what self-described (i.e. leftist) progressives would favor. A Republican is going to use force (a hard image) in pursuit of a progressive goal to counter the squishy image of progressivism.
As y'all should have figured by now, my perspective is of a long term evolution in human culture. Authoritarian, agricultural, religious, conservative cultures are transforming into democratic, industrial, secular progressive. This process has been slow and painful. In the West, the process might have started with the Protestant / Catholic conflict. The next phase was more revolutionary, with the English and American Civil Wars, the American and French Revolutions. There was then some imperialistic wars, from the Napoleonic through World War I, as the old royalist governments slowly lost influence to the more modern capitalist / democratic style. World War II saw fascist governments become unfashionable. The Cold War muted the power of Communism.

It seems clear we are in another phase shift. Communism was 'defeated' with a policy of containment. The Communists had the potential to launch military offensives, either overtly with the Soviet Army crashing into Europe, or through proxy revolutions. The current 'foes' of democracy, not yet assimilated (resistance is futile, you will be assimilated) have no similar capability. As the Cold War was stetted through proxy wars and economic competition, it seems unlikely that the next level of conflict can be settled on a conventional battlefield with front lines, artillery, tanks and air support.

There seem to be two fronts in the new conflict. The first is Islam. Of the various 'civilizations,' Islam has to date resisted Western / Industrial influence as effectively as any. They have had a recent religious awakening. They have not yet had a crisis to implement the new values of the awakening. Their governments and economies are still autocratic and agricultural. This cannot be sustained. They must in time transform themselves. The autocratic regimes have little motivation to phase themselves out of power.

The second front is ethnic. In many parts of the world, rich ethnic and / or religious minorities with political and/or economic clout dominate poor native minorities. Potentially, capitalism emperors the dominant minority, while democracy empowers the oppressed majority. This tension takes many forms. Saddam's Sunni minority just didn't bother with democracy. Still, in places like Somalia, the Balkans, East Timor, and the Sudan, such conflicts have caused meltdowns. We have seen ethnic cleansing, genocide, organized rape, and politically induced famine.

The Islamic and ethnic fronts are not totally unrelated, but any analysis needs both perspectives.

Clinton attempted to address the ethnic front. He was building towards an international consensus that when major human rights violations generate a collapse, international intervention is proper. His vision wasn't too far from the Cold War 'containment' policy. He wasn't looking to actively intervene in 3rd world countries, to force progress aggressively, but he would not tolerate crimes against humanity. In the long term, a containment policy with intervention only if society totally breaks down seems a proper response to the ethnic front.

Bush 43 is more focused towards the Islamic front. Even before the September 11th attacks, the New American Century report advocated a shift in American military emphasis towards stabilizing the Middle East along terms favorable to the United States. I can best make sense of the policy if I assume the oil is important. A shift from a fossil fuel economy to a post fossil future cannot occur without a stable Middle East friendly towards the developed countries. However, Bush 43 can't say that. He can't say "We need to install a puppet regime that will sell oil cheap on the dollar." He can talk about spreading democracy and containing WMDs. Still, there is talk, and there is action. Did the army have orders to search for and secure weapons, to establish peace and security, or to guard the oil fields?

To me, sending in an army to transform a culture is problematic. One cannot teach ethnic acceptance at bayonet point. I would consider the Yankee's attempt to reconstruct the South after the US Civil War as a normal result. They Yankees ended up going home with the job not half done. Yes, the US did convince the Germans and Japanese that war of aggression is a bad idea, but that was done more during the fighting than after.

To me, the question is whether use of military force as a tool for seeking economic and political advantage is cost effective. The US is spending far more on the capability to project force than anyone else. Can this force be used in a constructive and/or profitable way, or is it only apt to attract responses similar to 9.11? Should we lean towards containment, leaving the unassimilated autocratic regimes alone if at all possible, or does a more aggressive unilateral preemptive posture make sense. We can clearly win conventional wars against countries much smaller than we are, but occupying such countries takes our entire military potential, and the difficulty in transforming such countries must not be underestimated.

Which gets me back to the question as to whether Bush is progressive. I'm dubious. Radical, maybe. He is implementing a foreign policy which is a distinct break from the past. He is talking a 'progressive' game, in advocating democracy. Alas, I believe this progressive goal is a false mask for old fashioned use of military force to acquire an economic zone of influence. This isn't progressive, but down right reactionary.

But more worrisome is an underlying theme that 'progressive' means 'soft.' 'Progressive' means taking the establishment down a notch, spreading the wealth and power better with the downtrodden. Fourth Turnings are times for progressives, but they are never soft. It is never easy.
I agree, more or less, with the "traditional :arrow: secular" progression, but I suggest a third step: "secular :arrow: transmodern". In this case I would define "transmodernism" summarily as "postmodern cognition freed from the grip of modernity's Radical Materialist paradigm allowing for a reintroduction of subjectivity and intersubjectivity at a level more profound than that heretofore offered by premodern tradition". And that's the short version. :wink:

Transmoderism, as such, is pretty close to the whole "Integral Movement" going on largely as a result of the works of Ken Wilber, Paul Ray, and others.

I argue that without more of this third step, a Crisis of Subjectivity will cause more and more of a re-empowerment of traditional ways of understanding subjective concerns, i.e., hello fundamentalism!
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#9366 at 12-28-2004 07:22 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
12-28-2004, 07:22 PM #9366
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Re: Hard Progressives

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54
Which gets me back to the question as to whether Bush is progressive. I'm dubious. Radical, maybe. He is implementing a foreign policy which is a distinct break from the past.
Conservatives cannot be progressive since they are wedded to what was, not what will be. A radical who breaks with the past is not a conservative and so has the potential, if his side triumphs, of defining what is progress and what it means to be progressive.

He is talking a 'progressive' game, in advocating democracy. Alas, I believe this progressive goal is a false mask for old fashioned use of military force to acquire an economic zone of influence. This isn't progressive, but down right reactionary.
No, Bush has potentially given up the reactionary option. By talking a progressive game, as you put it, he has gone too far and now elections will be held next month. He cannot control the outcome and he will have to abide by the results, however they should fall. So far it has not gone his way as it did in Afghanistan. Remember how Chalabi was going to be our Iraqi Karzai? There has been no equivalent to the loya jirga in which horse trading with the various warlords got our guy in the top spot. It isn't even clear who the players are going to be. The Shiites outnumber the other ethnic groups 3:1 Who is Sistani backing and what role will Sadr play? Will they gain control of the country? And if they do, will Bush support them?







Post#9367 at 12-28-2004 08:36 PM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
12-28-2004, 08:36 PM #9367
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Re: Discussion on 3T vs 4T

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
If the Bush victory is a critical election then we should see some softening in commodity prices, particularly oil, so reduced price can start falling.
As I have previously posted, I tend to agree with this assessment of 2004 as a critical election: not a realignment, which leads to the establishment of a new overarching consensus as in 1932, but a dealignment, which leads to the collapse of the republic as in 1860.

However, it is unlikely that commodity prices will fall, at least in the short term. The current rise in commodity prices is not due to domestic forces or policy choices, but rather primarily to China's "catastrophic success" in growing its economy. Thus, a general decline in commodity prices is unlikely as long as demand for Chinese exports remains, and that demand is likely to remain as long as Americans have access to easy credit.

Problem is, the end of easy credit means the collapse of many venerable American institutions built on the credit pyramid, like Fannie Mae; an immediate recession in the U.S. and probably worldwide; and the finger of blame pointed squarely at the U.S. and its leading political figures.

In short, Bush and Co had better hope and pray that 2004 is not a critical election.
Yes we did!







Post#9368 at 12-29-2004 12:37 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
12-29-2004, 12:37 AM #9368
Guest

Re: The meaning of Progressive

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
Conservatives cannot be progressive since they are wedded to what was, not what will be. A radical who breaks with the past...
Seems to me that's exactly what Reagan did, when he slashed taxes and stood down the Soviets. But that's already been argued in these threads ad infinitum. Ain't no liberal ever gonna think Reagan did anything but take us back to the 1920s stoneage.

Seems to me, though, since Nixon at least, liberals only have fun when they are standing outside the halls of power squealing and yackin' at the guy(s) inside the halls. Funny how peaceful things were while Clinton was dropping bombs all over the world and signing Newt's Contract with America into law. Not only did we hear nary a peep from you "liberals" in those days, you virtually built a protective wall around the guy who merely "felt" your pain while dismantling the federal welfare system (as we then knew it).

In so far as I can tell, ever since Nixon, liberals have gradually yielded the role of national leadership to the GOP. Which thus has brought you to this barren wilderness today. Still, denial is running quite deep. So if you all can take some solace in the worn out and tired meaning of "conservative" -- reactionary lover of the "status quo" -- well then by all means wrap yourselves tightly in that warm little blanket.

In the meantime, the world keeps turning and we'll keep leading. Thanks. 8)







Post#9369 at 12-29-2004 09:11 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
12-29-2004, 09:11 AM #9369
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Re: The meaning of Progressive

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Seems to me that's exactly what Reagan did, when he slashed taxes and stood down the Soviets. But that's already been argued in these threads ad infinitum.
Slashing taxes was not a break from the past. In Reagan's lifetime, both Republicans (Harding, Coolidge) and Democrats (Kennedy, Johnson) had cut taxes. Standard (liberal) Keynesian economics even called for cutting taxes and running deficits during recessions. The early 1980's did see the most severe recession in the post-war period.

As for the Soviet Union, Reagan simply continued the policy of containment. He could have broken with the past by invading Lebanon after the 1983 bombing or by declaring war on Iran (for backing the Lebanese terrorism) and allying with Saddam. The conquest of Iran would re-establish the central Asian front against the Soviets that was lost in 1979. Reagan did neither, choosing merely to give limited aid in Afghanistan in accordance with the Truman Doctrine, just as Eisenhower did in Indochina. He gave material support to Saddam Hussein, but did not make war on Iran.

Bush's foreign policy is a bold departure from that of previous Republican presidents. It is based on unproven theories about the suspectibility of Muslim populations to democratic impulses. It is not based on the sort of cautious realpolitik that guided his Republican predecessors. I am not saying that Bush is wrong, I am saying that Bush is acting less conservatively than Reagan and Bush I did when faced with terrorism. I agree that 911 is far more serious than Lebanon was--this is what makes it a crisis trigger--it changes behavior. I believe that Candidate Bush intended to run a less interventionist foreign policy than Clinton did--but 911 changed things and now he is behaving in very unconservative ways.







Post#9370 at 12-29-2004 09:22 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
12-29-2004, 09:22 AM #9370
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Re: Discussion on 3T vs 4T

Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
However, it is unlikely that commodity prices will fall, at least in the short term. The current rise in commodity prices is not due to domestic forces or policy choices, but rather primarily to China's "catastrophic success" in growing its economy.
Quite true, but "catastrophic success" in growing its economy can lead to financial crisis such as that which hit the Asian tigers in 1997.







Post#9371 at 12-29-2004 10:10 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
12-29-2004, 10:10 AM #9371
Guest

Re: The meaning of Progressive

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Seems to me that's exactly what Reagan did, when he slashed taxes and stood down the Soviets. But that's already been argued in these threads ad infinitum.
Slashing taxes was not a break from the past. In Reagan's lifetime, both Republicans (Harding, Coolidge) and Democrats (Kennedy, Johnson) had cut taxes.
Like I said, same old same old arguing ad infinitum. Robert Samuelson has written a nice op-ed in today's WaPo. He says exactly what I've been saying for years in these threads. And he even adds the caveat I have emphasized at the end: "It need not be."

There is a critical difference between the Harding/Coolidge et al era and the Reagan/Bush et al era: In a word it is isolationism. In that sense, the GOP are truly the new progressives and the dominate majority of liberals are reactionaries and depressionists. It has been said that isolationism rises because conservatives think America too good for the world while liberals think us not good enough, nay the true "evil" in the world. The past election, with Iraq as it's chief theme proved that Bush and the GOP stand alone in embracing America's duty to lead in a changing world. It is the Democrats who would prefer that America leave her post as "biggest power on the block," as Mr. Clinton put it, and turn inward on ourselves.

Yes, Kennedy/Johnson may have cheered us to the moon, but the new liberals have solidly rejected that mission and have instead adopted the Poitics of Isolationism.







Post#9372 at 12-29-2004 12:05 PM by Arkarch [at joined Nov 2004 #posts 209]
---
12-29-2004, 12:05 PM #9372
Join Date
Nov 2004
Posts
209

Regarding Hollywood.

Early Hollywood, and someone would argue even today, was largely run by those of eastern European descent. That they would support war against Nazi Germany is a no-brainer.

I tend to be more cynical today, believing that many in Hollywood engage in retail politics. They'll support certain issues for popularity or business politic reasons.

Certainly many are sincere and believe in their own rhetoric. But I would be more convinced of general Hollywood attitudes if there was a rough parity representative of the country at large. Instead we see apparent bandwagoning.







Post#9373 at 12-29-2004 12:07 PM by Brian Beecher [at Downers Grove, IL joined Sep 2001 #posts 2,937]
---
12-29-2004, 12:07 PM #9373
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Downers Grove, IL
Posts
2,937

A piece in this morning's Sun-Times is an indication that we are very much still in 3T mode. In case you though the excess of the 90's were over, a sotry published in the New York Times about the bonuses on Wall Street estimated that $15.9 billion is to be handed out to traders, analysts and bankers, on top of their already hefty salaries. And yet we keep hearing about more and more layoffs at companies. If we were in 4T, would there be considerably more outrage over such practices.







Post#9374 at 12-29-2004 02:08 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
12-29-2004, 02:08 PM #9374
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: Discussion on 3T vs 4T

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
Quote Originally Posted by Rick Hirst
However, it is unlikely that commodity prices will fall, at least in the short term. The current rise in commodity prices is not due to domestic forces or policy choices, but rather primarily to China's "catastrophic success" in growing its economy.
Quite true, but "catastrophic success" in growing its economy can lead to financial crisis such as that which hit the Asian tigers in 1997.
I think that may be part of his point.
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#9375 at 12-29-2004 02:24 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
12-29-2004, 02:24 PM #9375
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: Year Zero?

Quote Originally Posted by scott '63
Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Fasten your seat belts, folks. 2005 is almost here, and this may indeed be Year Zero as Strauss and Howe have predicted.
Did S&H predict 2005 or just that "year zero" would come... eventually?

If the former, I would be interested in reading it.
Hi Scott,

S&H do mention 2005 on p. 272 of T4T, qualifying "a few years before or after".

I created an rough index/guage based on S&H's concept of generations and life phases being about 21 years in length at this point (again, according to them -- some erudite posters here think it is less).

The index lines up the leading edges (cohorts) of the generations in midlife, young adulthood, and youth up against the life phase permutations of 63, 42, and 21. It then subtracts the relevant cohort age from the permutation number. Finally, it adds all of the numbers.

2004 looks like this:

1943 Boomers=61
1961 Xers = 43
1982 Millies = 22

61-63= -2
43-43= +1
22-21= +1

-2+1+1= 0

Therefore, Dec 31, 2004 (a couple of days from now), when everyone in those above cohorts have reached those ages, is theoretically Ground Zero for a turning trigger to occur. Certainly 2004 and 2005 are very high probability years by this reckoning.

Looking at the last three turning changes (and discarding the earlier ones due to "generational compaction", or the controversial idea of the shortening of generations over time) we see the index at:

+4 in 1946
-3 in 1964
-3 in 1984

Zero looks about right.

We are ready now, and I'm pretty sure Strauss & Howe think so too.
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.
-----------------------------------------