Hi. This is my first post, so no flaming!

As a Millennial, and as a fan of the work of Strauss & Howe, I couldn't help but wonder when the Unraveling/Crisis shift occurred, or will occur. The last few cycles have all lasted about the length of a generation - anywhere from 16 to 20+ years. And since a Hero generation (like Millennials) is born during an Unraveling, the way to define the end of my generation would be by knowing around when the Unraveling ends. Already there are new babies being born who I am sure will have very little in common with me generationally. They have no memories of the Clinton presidency, the Macarena, or 9/11. They will grow up in a world of restriction rather than a world of concern; in a world of frugality rather than a world of affluence; in a world of overprotection rather than a world of thirtysomething-era obsession with "good parenting".

So clearly the kids born today aren't Millennials. Every Millennial has some connection with the turn of the Millennium (duh!), and most have memories at least of Monica Lewinsky, Newt Gingrich, and the Y2K scare. So when did this new generation start? And on a related note, when did the Unraveling end?

I feel it's confusing because 9/11 should have been the start of the Fourth Turning. What other event was so vital, so crucial, so unifying as to officially bring us into Crisis mode? And yet due to the leadership style of Congress and President Bush, it didn't last. The last few years have had a clear feeling of social decay and division, which is definitely more an Unraveling thing than a Crisis thing. There is little sense of unity. And no one seems to be "sacrificing" anything yet; instead, we're all hanging on to materialism by a thread. So this is definitely not a Crisis in the mold of the Depression and World War II, or even in the mold of the Civil War.

So if we're still in Unraveling (albeit near the end), when does the Crisis start? It's coming. You can feel it. But it's been 22 years since the Unraveling began. How much longer can this feeling of separation last? When are we going to be forced to face the reality that we are reliving 1929? When do we get off our soapboxes and unite? I don't know. Do you?

Originally Posted by 1990

Hi. This is my first post, so no flaming!

As a Millennial, and as a fan of the work of Strauss & Howe, I couldn't help but wonder when the Unraveling/Crisis shift occurred, or will occur. The last few cycles have all lasted about the length of a generation - anywhere from 16 to 20+ years. And since a Hero generation (like Millennials) is born during an Unraveling, the way to define the end of my generation would be by knowing around when the Unraveling ends. Already there are new babies being born who I am sure will have very little in common with me generationally. They have no memories of the Clinton presidency, the Macarena, or 9/11. They will grow up in a world of restriction rather than a world of concern; in a world of frugality rather than a world of affluence; in a world of over-protection rather than a world of thirty-something-era obsession with "good parenting".

So clearly the kids born today aren't Millennials. Every Millennial has some connection with the turn of the Millennium (duh!), and most have memories at least of Monica Lewinsky, Newt Gingrich, and the Y2K scare. So when did this new generation start? And on a related note, when did the Unraveling end?

I feel it's confusing because 9/11 should have been the start of the Fourth Turning. What other event was so vital, so crucial, so unifying as to officially bring us into Crisis mode? And yet due to the leadership style of Congress and President Bush, it didn't last. The last few years have had a clear feeling of social decay and division, which is definitely more an Unraveling thing than a Crisis thing. There is little sense of unity. And no one seems to be "sacrificing" anything yet; instead, we're all hanging on to materialism by a thread. So this is definitely not a Crisis in the mold of the Depression and World War II, or even in the mold of the Civil War.

So if we're still in Unraveling (albeit near the end), when does the Crisis start? It's coming. You can feel it. But it's been 22 years since the Unraveling began. How much longer can this feeling of separation last? When are we going to be forced to face the reality that we are reliving 1929? When do we get off our soapboxes and unite? I don't know. Do you?

Welcome to the board. Bring your friends; we need more members of you Gen. For your first post, you picked the most discussed topic on this forum.

Opinions are all over the board, pun intended. Things that should have happened by now, haven't. That's certainly clear. What's not so clear is why. I have an opinion, like everyone else here, but I don't put it in the league of near certainty, like some. You shouldn't either.

I think that the 3T-4T transition has been delayed or deflected by those aware that change does occur on a regular basis. Those managing the process may be aware of the theory ... or not. That's less important than an awareness of recent history. The changes in the 20th century are pretty obvious, and the thinkers and plotters in both parties see this as a change time. They are all working to steer it in the direction they wish it to go, and, so far, the result has been a War of Words (WoW) with increasing levels of partisanship and little else.

It's like a medieval war where the defense keeps building a bigger and stronger castle and the offense, bigger and stronger siege weapons. So far, defense is winning, but the walls are showing cracks. Oddly, both camps are playing both roles this time: defending their respective ground and viciously attacking their opponents in this escalating WoW.

They both may be too clever by half. The public is getting weary and may opt to just trow out all the incumbents they can. If it's dramatic enough, that should mark the beginning of the Regeneracy. Now, all you have to do is look back and find the trigger. I like Hurricane Katrina as an expected event that was allowed to deteriorate due, in large part, to hubris of the political class at all levels. Others still believe it's 9/11.

So you can believe as you wish, and not be out of the mainstream. So far, there isn't one.

Enjoy the Indian Summer of the Unravelling whilst you can. 2012 will be a Time of Turning (It is getting late: Mr. E. O. Wilson, the Progressive Scientist, has begun to crawl to an Xian Canossa in order to acquire enough Moral and Political energy to retain the variety of that most liberal of creations presented to Progressives by a deity (alt.-- The Deity) or Nature's Deity.) !

Originally Posted by Mr. Wilson, penitently

We have not met, yet I feel I know you well enough to call you friend. First of all, we grew up in the same faith. Although I no longer belong to that faith, I am confident that if we met and spoke privately of our deepest beliefs, it would be in a spirit of mutual respect and goodwill. I write to you now for your counsel and help. Let us see if we can, and you are willing, to meet on the near side of metaphysics in order to deal with the real world we share. I suggest that we set aside our differences in order to save the Creation. The defense of living Nature is a universal value. It doesn’t rise from nor does it promote any religious or ideological dogma. Rather, it serves without discrimination the interests of all humanity.

Pastor, we need your help. The Creation—living Nature—is in deep trouble.

The Red Heifer-ites have yet to reply. But, they have begun to consider.

Welcome 1990. Marx and Lennon's points are well taken. Also, remember that scince about the year 1800 cycles have lasted about 80 years. While it is true that history does not repeat itself in a year by year process, 2001 may have been just a bit early to completely turn the cycle. In some ways it would almost be like the 1929 stock market crash happening in 1921.

I'm not saying that 911 will not prove to be the catalyst, I've even heard plausable arguments that the 2000 presidential election began the crises. Nevertheless, the generations were a bit young in 2000-01 for new roles. For example, if you use 22 years for a phase of life as S and H do and use the cohort years they define such as 1961-81 for the X'ers then the generations were not completely out of their 3t phaises of life in 2000-01. The oldest millies were 19 when 911 happened, X'ers were 39 and so on.

One thing that I think did change with 911 is that it probabally marked the end of the millie cohorts. In other words, the overprotection of children, already on its way, has probabally began scince 911. It is possible that if we have a long crises that a few cohorts such as 2002 and 2003 may have heroic coming of age experences and be annexed into the millies, as proabally happened with the 1923 and 1924 cohort GI's, but I agree with you that the infants we see today almost have to be new adaptives or else were going to have a civic generation approaching 30 years in length. Even with newborn adaptives we still could be 3t for often the turning does not occur until a few years after the new generation starts being born. FWIW, I have been arguing that we are still 3t, but I'm not as sure of it as I was several months ago. Too many people seem to have become aware that right now and for the forseeable future we are "playing for keeps" to use a slang expression.

There have been several companion events such as the heavy voting in the 2004 election and Katrina which also may be the catalyst, it's going to take some more time to see what consensus devolops as to which event is the true catalyst. Stay tuned. :

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Welcome 1990. Marx and Lennon's points are well taken. Also, remember that scince about the year 1800 cycles have lasted about 80 years. While it is true that history does not repeat itself in a year by year process, 2001 may have been just a bit early to completely turn the cycle. In some ways it would almost be like the 1929 stock market crash happening in 1921. :

It is interesting that you say that about what if the stock market crashed in 1921. Well in a way it did, actually it did in 1920-1921. The Dow was down about 47% but the stocks related to the growing auto industry such as GM were down 75-80% over that time period. Also land and food commodities took a huge hit during that time.

One of the long term members of this forum Jim Goulding (Genx1961) has some great Essays about the 1920 crash and other interesting items on his website.

http://www.jamesgoulding.com/SA_s.ht...;_A_Comparison

http://www.jamesgoulding.com/SA_s.html#Debt

What if 9/11 has become the same as the 1920-21 crash, i.e. a false start to a Crisis that really comes several years later?

Maybe 9/11 was just the first "warning" that a Crisis was coming. It clearly didn't fully kick us into 4T gear, as the societal atmosphere is more bitter and divided than ever, not less. Perhaps sometime in the next few years we will get the "real" wake-up call, like the 1929 "Black Tuesday" crash.

I'm not saying 9/11 wasn't important, but that maybe it was not the true catalyst of the Fourth Turning. It could be as late as 2010 that we get the real start of 4T.

By the way, I have really appreciated everyone's input. Don't be shy, keep posting. This is quite enlightening.

Originally Posted by 1990

What if 9/11 has become the same as the 1920-21 crash, i.e. a false start to a Crisis that really comes several years later?

Maybe 9/11 was just the first "warning" that a Crisis was coming. It clearly didn't fully kick us into 4T gear, as the societal atmosphere is more bitter and divided than ever, not less. Perhaps sometime in the next few years we will get the "real" wake-up call, like the 1929 "Black Tuesday" crash.

I'm not saying 9/11 wasn't important, but that maybe it was not the true catalyst of the Fourth Turning. It could be as late as 2010 that we get the real start of 4T.

By the way, I have really appreciated everyone's input. Don't be shy, keep posting. This is quite enlightening.

I would say that the crash of 2000 might've been the equivalent to the 1920 crash.

Also, keep in mind that the first years of Crisis are usually very bitter and divided. The first half of the 1930s were very bitter indeed. The bitterness and darkness did not really begin to lift until the middle of the decade with the Second New Deal, the labor strife of 1936-1937, and the release of Snow White. The first years are always the darkest. In the Glorious Revolution, the latter half of the 1670s were definitely nasty. In the American Revolution, the years from 1773 to about 1778 were very bitter and dark. The darkness only began to lift in 1779. And keep in mind that these were very divided years too. In the Civil War, the darkness did not begin to lift until after the war (many believe that the Civil War Crisis actually stretched up until 1871 or 1877).

I think that we are in Crisis, either caused by E2K4 or by Katrina, and I think that we are entering the darkest interval. Neisha has read a book called The Dark Valley (which is about the world history of the 1930s), and she says that the mood today is similar to the mood of the early Dark Valley period. So far, this has been a rather dark decade. The 3T Indian Summer ended precisely in the March of 2000 with the bursting of the Tech bubble and the stock market crash (the first leg of the Great Devaluation?). I also think of this period as the first passage into midlife of many Xers because while the period before the crash was a wild and exciting party, the period after it was a large hangover. Then there was E2K, which was definitely a chilly wind.

And then there was 9/11. Now that was a dark September. At that point, it was probably the darkest since 1939. That was a somber period. Dale Maharidge compares the post-9/11 era to the 1930s, saying that American society is more volatile that any other post-WWII period. And then there was the summer of 2002, with corporate scandals and another stock market devaluation. In 2003, there was Iraq, and economic fear. So we've had a very chilly late autumn. E2K4 was a time of increasing domestic unrest. Some time between Bush's second inauguration and Katrina, the public just became fed up with Bush.

And then came Katrina. My experience of September of 2005 was that it was a very dark month, darker than September of 2001. Katrina is always compared to some prior Crisis Era event. People say that not since the Civil War had an entire city been totally emptied. There are countless references to the Dust Bowl, and countless comparisons made to The Grapes of Wrath. Some even compare it to France on the eve of revolution in 1788. Katrina has led to political upheaval along the Gulf Coast. There are already several documentaries on Katrina. And Katrina has led to a revival of civic activism, and revived discussions on the role of government and the responsibility of the civilian. So it definitely qualifies as a Crisis Event, IMO.

But what will happen in the future? Well, the housing bubble is deflating, and many people fear that we will enter a new recession. And then there are many other problems. But how will the citizens respond? 2007 is likely to be a nasty year.

I would tend to agree with you about the false start. I think 9-11 happened right after the 2000 election and we weren’t able to give up our differences and unite for a cause.

I tend to think 2010 or so is the time 4T will begin also. I think it will be more financial in nature to start with, similar to the 30's and 40's.

On another side note regarding the 1920-21 market downturn, it is interesting to note that a big terrorist bombing happened in New York right in the middle of the downturn. The similarities between 1920 and 2000 are very interesting.

Originally Posted by 1990

What if 9/11 has become the same as the 1920-21 crash, i.e. a false start to a Crisis that really comes several years later?

Maybe 9/11 was just the first "warning" that a Crisis was coming. It clearly didn't fully kick us into 4T gear, as the societal atmosphere is more bitter and divided than ever, not less. Perhaps sometime in the next few years we will get the "real" wake-up call, like the 1929 "Black Tuesday" crash.

I'm not saying 9/11 wasn't important, but that maybe it was not the true catalyst of the Fourth Turning. It could be as late as 2010 that we get the real start of 4T.

By the way, I have really appreciated everyone's input. Don't be shy, keep posting. This is quite enlightening.

Replying to what Mr. Reed said, I agree that so far this has been a very dark, "cold" decade (no pun intended regarding global warming). I always thought of the Depression/WWII Crisis as unifying, proud, difficult but hopeful. I didn't consider that the first half of the 1930s was probably quite divided, bitter, and gloomy, without much sense of heroism. If that's the case, it would make sense that we have entered 4T, and it would also make sense that 9/11 prompted the shift.

While politics has remained a polarizing and Culture War-y thing (there, my bad grammar has betrayed my age!), it is getting less so. We are seeing politicians talk less and less about God/guns/gays and more about fundamental governmental issues concerning security, civil rights, and "where to go from here". And it's possible that with the increasingly universal pessimism over current policies, the 2008 election (or 2012?) may prove to be our era's 1932, a massive rebuke of Washington's direction. (The '06 elections may hint at a turn in that direction too).

So perhaps 9/11 was the start of the Crisis. I had merely assumed that the Fourth Turning would begin with a bang that united us, but that was silly. Americans in the last Crisis did not unite until the New Deal and perhaps not even until Pearl Harbor. So maybe this really is 4T, just the early stages. People are certainly more universally dark about the times than they were just four or five years ago. Even Republicans say we are on the wrong track. The bitterness going on is not 3T in nature, but more early 4T. You are so right.

Thoughts?

Several posters here have noted before that cultures tend to go through a bumbiling around period early in a 4t. That would make sense for the generations are just beginning to adapt to the new roles that the 4t is forcing on them. The prophets are still divided amongst themselves about the direction that they want to lead the nation into. The nomads go through what S and H in Generations called the "hangover" as they realize that their youth is effectively gone. The young heroes have yet to focus on going beyond their "good deeds" childhood. Past times like this include 1929-1933, the late 1850's and 1765-73.

It is the darkest time in the 80 year cycle. Everything in the physical world seems to be falling apart at the same time and the people seem unfit to deal with it. The now decades old appeal to inner world ideals begins to ring hollow and inappicable to the new conditions. You have a culture with a decaying outer world and and an inner world that no longer seems to be able come up with any ideals or ideas as good as those that seemed to come so easily during the awakening. It's time for a change.

S and H compare the turnings to the seasons and their discription of the 4t as winter is apt. Just like the first few days of winter are the darkest as they have the least amount of daylight, they usually aren't as cold as the days to come. Later in winter the physical coldness is usually colder but the days are slowly but noticably getting longer again. Hope for brighter days returns.

So it is with the saecular cycle. The unavoidable harshness of the physical world forces everyone to take the future seriously for the first time scince late in the awakening. The generations mature into the new roles that only they can make work. The elder prophets by guiding the young to build a better future that had only been a dream during the awakening. The midlife nomads emerge from their "hangover" with the "cold shower realism" needed to turn the dream into reality without destroying the culture in the process. And the physical part of this transformation is mostly carried out by young adult heroes. If it goes well, the second part of the 4t is the regeneracy as the society now goes forward with an ethos that makes sense across generational lines and big problems can be solved with what will seem like ease later.

Hello, 1990, fellow Millie here (89').

I'd probably put the catalyst with 9/11. I think the surge in emotion (in that direction) in the months following could only happen in a crisis period. Of course, the years that followed have seen a slight shift in that emotion, largely among political lines. I don't think political bickering is necessarily foreign to a 4T. After all, how do civil wars (largely 4T) begin? Even during the reign of FDR in the 1930's there was much dissent with his policies.

What we are missing are the day-to-day struggles that were experienced following the 1929 crash through 1945.

So I lean towards the 4T camp, though it is clearly a mix of the two.

But hey, does it really matter?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

What we are missing are the day-to-day struggles that were experienced following the 1929 crash through 1945.

At this point, it is local. Those affected by Katrina are in their Crisis hardship.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

What we are missing are the day-to-day struggles that were experienced following the 1929 crash through 1945.

Examples like this are becoming more common.

Nice to see someone almost as young as me here. I don't feel like an anomaly.

I totally agree that if we have entered 4T, 9/11 caused it. I'm still on the fence about it, but your argument as well as some others' makes me think we may have made the shift recently. I assumed that 4Ts are marked by unity early on, but it makes sense that the first few years are divisive, bitter, awkward, and polarizing. In the last Crisis there was no real unity behind FDR's policies at least until the late '30s and perhaps until as late as Pearl Harbor.

Depending on who you believe, 2006 is either the equivalent of 1928 (i.e. nearing the end of an Unraveling), or more around 1933-34 (i.e. in the early, dark stages of the Crisis). With all the great arguments I'm hearing, I'm leaning more and more toward the latter.

And it does matter. Michael, we're Millies. This is our future. This is our youth. The sooner Crisis comes is the sooner we will have to be out there being "heroic youths". The later it is delayed, the older we are when we have to fill that role. And to look at it one way, the sooner the 4T comes, the sooner it ends, and thus the sooner we have a renewed, optimistic, proud 1T society again. Sure, that will bring along with it a conformist, status quo-friendly, change-averse attitude to society, but I'll take 1960 over 1935 any day of the week.

So here's kind of a stupid question: what will the 4T be recognized as? Is it just the "War on Terror" or is it more? The last Crisis started with a financial bust and ended with the most destructive war in history. We seem to be getting the war first this time. So what will shape this 4T, whether we're in it now or not? And will this 4T end on a triumphant note, like the last one, or will it end America's reign as global superpower?

Originally Posted by 1990

Nice to see someone almost as young as me here. I don't feel like an anomaly.

There was another 1990 or 1991 birth here earlier. His name started with blue. I haven't seen him for a while. There are also a few others that are a couple years older than me.

Depending on who you believe, 2006 is either the equivalent of 1928 (i.e. nearing the end of an Unraveling), or more around 1933-34 (i.e. in the early, dark stages of the Crisis). With all the great arguments I'm hearing, I'm leaning more and more toward the latter.

I don't think you can put a date on this crisis that was equivilent to the last. We haven't had 'our' finanical panic yet and there hasn't been a war that has approached the level necessary for a crisis.

But we still display many 4T signs. Something will set it off, and I have a feeling there will be no turning back.

And it does matter. Michael, we're Millies. This is our future. This is our youth. The sooner Crisis comes is the sooner we will have to be out there being "heroic youths". The later it is delayed, the older we are when we have to fill that role. And to look at it one way, the sooner the 4T comes, the sooner it ends, and thus the sooner we have a renewed, optimistic, proud 1T society again. Sure, that will bring along with it a conformist, status quo-friendly, change-averse attitude to society, but I'll take 1960 over 1935 any day of the week.

I don't think we will have to wait much longer. I would be awful surprised, 10 years after 9/11, that we are still spinning around aimlessly as a country. Personally, I am excited. It may sound horrible, but I'd be lying if I were to say I didn't want it to come sooner rather than later.

But there is also the chance that the 4T will turn out badly, so I wouldn't assume that the 1950's will be like the 2020's.

So here's kind of a stupid question: what will the 4T be recognized as? Is it just the "War on Terror" or is it more? The last Crisis started with a financial bust and ended with the most destructive war in history. We seem to be getting the war first this time. So what will shape this 4T, whether we're in it now or not? And will this 4T end on a triumphant note, like the last one, or will it end America's reign as global superpower?

I would recommend looking around these forums and reading some others theories on how the crisis will turn out, as well as some that have changes to S&H theory. A few have blogs and websites that I would recommend reading. When I first read Generations and then TFT, I went to these forums and clicked on a few links. I subscribe to http://generationaldynamics.com/ by our very own John Xenakis, but you might find something else that you like. Strauss and Howe don't comment much on the future anymore, and it is always nice to get a second opinion.

Matt

Originally Posted by 1990

Replying to what Mr. Reed said, I agree that so far this has been a very dark, "cold" decade (no pun intended regarding global warming). I always thought of the Depression/WWII Crisis as unifying, proud, difficult but hopeful. I didn't consider that the first half of the 1930s was probably quite divided, bitter, and gloomy, without much sense of heroism. If that's the case, it would make sense that we have entered 4T, and it would also make sense that 9/11 prompted the shift.

Possibly. Sean has introduced the concept of the Phony 4T. Or here is another way to put it. The early 1960s was a 1T, but it felt much brighter than the 1950s. The period of Kennedy's presidency might've been a Phony 2T, with the mass Civil Rights demonstrations taking place. The word "Camelot" might capture the essense of this period. To me, that was the antipode of the period between 9/11 and Katrina.

The period after 911 but before the Iraq invasion in 2003 was in many ways a false regeneracy. Remember, we did have an overwhelming sense of unity and practically no one opposed invading Afghanistan? The fact that is this era has a 'moving backwards' feeling to it. It seemed right after 911 that we could go directly to a regeneracy without having to deal with the dark bumbiling around period. It was only when the division over the Iraq invasion occured that it became apparent that the bumbiling around could not be avoided.

That may be the nature of the beast. After all, the grey champions become apparent near the end of a 4t rather than at its beginning. In Generations, S and H noted that when idealists are just entering power their leaders tend to show some of the worst traits associated with their archtype such as intolerance for the opinions of others while at the same time continuing to indulge their own shortcomings.

There's no way that 9/11 was a turning point, due to the simple fact that nothing changed. Every policy advocated since 9/11 is a simple extension of policies already advocated before 9/11, especially those policies justified with "9/11 changed everything." For example, we now know that BushCo had detailed plans for invading Iraq before they even took office.

As I asserted back in mid-2004, we now see that the 2004 election was another de-aligning election, and would likely have been so even if Kerry had been elected. "Stay the Course" was the watchword for both sides of the aisle. (I personally voted for Kerry in hope for a return to Clinton-era fiscal conservatism, not for some sort of new New Deal that he never really articulated.)

But such hesitancy was not surprising -- it reflected the mood of the people, who were still in the borrow-and-waste mode they had been in since the beginning of the Unraveling. And that continued basically until the fall of 2005. The devastation of Katrina (which was worse than 9/11) and the coincident increase in gas prices, finally began to get the message through that the party is over.

Americans are still dealing with the hangover -- 2006 will be yet another de-aligning election -- but we're finally awakening to the need for a regeneracy. As you've all indicated, we have a long way to go before the Regeneracy actually begins.

Rather than 2001=1929 and thus 2004=1932, I'd say 2004=1928 and thus 2001=1925 (the year Mussolini took absolute power; the comparison is deliberate.) So we won't see the beginning of the Regeneracy for another 2-3 years (if 1925=2001, 2009=1933... and the 100 Days, or alternatively, the Enabling Act.)

Originally Posted by Finch

There's no way that 9/11 was a turning point, due to the simple fact that nothing changed. Every policy advocated since 9/11 is a simple extension of policies already advocated before 9/11, especially those policies justified with "9/11 changed everything." For example, we now know that BushCo had detailed plans for invading Iraq before they even took office.

As I asserted back in mid-2004, we now see that the 2004 election was another de-aligning election, and would likely have been so even if Kerry had been elected. "Stay the Course" was the watchword for both sides of the aisle. (I personally voted for Kerry in hope for a return to Clinton-era fiscal conservatism, not for some sort of new New Deal that he never really articulated.)

But such hesitancy was not surprising -- it reflected the mood of the people, who were still in the borrow-and-waste mode they had been in since the beginning of the Unraveling. And that continued basically until the fall of 2005. The devastation of Katrina (which was worse than 9/11) and the coincident increase in gas prices, finally began to get the message through that the party is over.

Americans are still dealing with the hangover -- 2006 will be yet another de-aligning election -- but we're finally awakening to the need for a regeneracy. As you've all indicated, we have a long way to go before the Regeneracy actually begins.

Rather than 2001=1929 and thus 2004=1932, I'd say 2004=1928 and thus 2001=1925 (the year Mussolini took absolute power; the comparison is deliberate.) So we won't see the beginning of the Regeneracy for another 2-3 years (if 1925=2001, 2009=1933... and the 100 Days, or alternatively, the Enabling Act.)

I actually think that 2006 will be a realigning election. More accurately, it will probably be both. The dealignment process could occur so violently that it forces more realignment. The Dems and Pubs are both in increasing turmoil and disarray. In addition, both sides will be in a feces slinging match whose vitrol and nastiness would likely appall most people. At the same time, the netroots (conservative, liberal, or whatever) will be battling the establishment. Get ready for a season of pure ugliness.

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

I actually think that 2006 will be a realigning election. More accurately, it will probably be both. The dealignment process could occur so violently that it forces more realignment. The Dems and Pubs are both in increasing turmoil and disarray. In addition, both sides will be in a feces slinging match whose vitrol and nastiness would likely appall most people. At the same time, the netroots (conservative, liberal, or whatever) will be battling the establishment. Get ready for a season of pure ugliness.

You misunderstand what I (and others here) mean when we say "realigning" -- we mean "establishing a broad new consensus", as in 1932. Thus it is impossible for an election to be both dealigning and realigning. And I don't think that's what you're saying -- you're expecting that 2006 will be so highly partisan that it will finally force a new consensus circa 2008. In that, I agree. (However, as I said, I anticipate that the main driver for the new consensus will be the post-housing-bubble economic collapse.)

Originally Posted by herbal tee

The period after 911 but before the Iraq invasion in 2003 was in many ways a false regeneracy. Remember, we did have an overwhelming sense of unity and practically no one opposed invading Afghanistan? The fact that is this era has a 'moving backwards' feeling to it. It seemed right after 911 that we could go directly to a regeneracy without having to deal with the dark bumbiling around period. It was only when the division over the Iraq invasion occured that it became apparent that the bumbiling around could not be avoided.

That may be the nature of the beast. After all, the grey champions become apparent near the end of a 4t rather than at its beginning. In Generations, S and H noted that when idealists are just entering power their leaders tend to show some of the worst traits associated with their archtype such as intolerance for the opinions of others while at the same time continuing to indulge their own shortcomings.

I agree that the 9/11 immediate aftermath represented a false regeneracy, even if the terrorist attacks were indeed the Catalyst. Skipping the Cascade phase of a Crisis is almost like losing a Turning... like Bob Dole's "Way Back To A Better Past", i.e. leaping from an Unraveling to a new High.

OTOH, I don't agree that GCs tend to appear toward the end of a 4T. In the last two Crises, the Grey Champion emerged very early in the Turning... FDR in 1931 when he began his successful run for the Presidency... Abe Lincoln in 1860 as his election triggered the attack on Fort Sumter and subsequent Southern secession. And even during the Revolution, George Washington probably rose to GC status during the latter part of the War, when it became apparent that he was leading the Colonial Army to victory... 1780 at the latest, not quite halfway through the 4T.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

OTOH, I don't agree that GCs tend to appear toward the end of a 4T. In the last two Crises, the Grey Champion emerged very early in the Turning... FDR in 1931 when he began his successful run for the Presidency... Abe Lincoln in 1860 as his election triggered the attack on Fort Sumter and subsequent Southern secession. And even during the Revolution, George Washington probably rose to GC status during the latter part of the War, when it became apparent that he was leading the Colonial Army to victory... 1780 at the latest, not quite halfway through the 4T.

Maybe I should have said that GC's become apparent later in the crises. Yes, FDR became a national figure as early as 1920 when he was the Democratic nominee for VP and his 1928 election as governor of New York (Spitzer in '16 anyone?) makes you a serious possibility for president. But the permanance of his new deal legacy didn't become apparent until his landslide re-election in 1936. Remember, the so called conventional wisdom going into 1936 was that FDR's 1932 election was an abberation caused by the severeness of the depression and the nation's "natural" Republican majority would reassert itself.

The civil war is such an odd bird, being a "three generation" crises, I won't go there...and I hope our cycle doesn't.

George Washington? Can a nomad qualify as a GC? Well, maybe Elizabeth I in 1588. But I consider Washington along with Eisenhower and to a lesser extent Grant to be the epitome of the "fatherly nomad" respected by a 1t world that he helped save. I've always considered Ben Franklin the main GC of that cycle. But, yes he was famous by the standards of the time before the revolution. What I'm trying to ay in a roundabout way is that we won't likely agree on who the true GC's for several more years. Nevertheless, your point is well taken.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

The period after 911 but before the Iraq invasion in 2003 was in many ways a false regeneracy. Remember, we did have an overwhelming sense of unity and practically no one opposed invading Afghanistan? The fact that is this era has a 'moving backwards' feeling to it. It seemed right after 911 that we could go directly to a regeneracy without having to deal with the dark bumbiling around period. It was only when the division over the Iraq invasion occured that it became apparent that the bumbiling around could not be avoided.

I would agree with this. I believe the nature of 9/11 caused the "false regeneracy." We were attacked, seemingly unprovoked, by an enemy who simply hates America. Would you expect anything but unity? I do believe, however, that the reaction that followed could only have happened in a 4T.

Do you believe that a real regeneracy could/will happen under Bush?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Do you believe that a real regeneracy could/will happen under Bush?

I know you weren't asking the forum in general, but I'll jump in anyway: NO, I don't believe a real regeneracy can happen under Bush, nor his successor. The American Empire has run its course; we are witnessing the final act, and there will be no encore.

But that's just me

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Do you believe that a real regeneracy could/will happen under Bush?

At this point, I can see no scenerio where he can be a "uniter not a divider"- America's political-cultural divisions are too deep at this point.

In terms of whether a two term Bush presidentcy could have lead to a true regeneracy under a different fact base, it's still unlikely. We're so early into the 4t, if we're even there yet, that the "youth" of each generation in its new role would still likely lead to "bumbiling around."

Speaking frankly and too generally, but as a 1961 cohort, I am on the cusp of two generations which haven't grown into their 4t roles yet. Too many boomers that I know really will start "fights" be they literal or figureitive over trivia. Conversely, I know too many X'ers who still won't commit to anything outside a small circle of friends and family. There's probabally nothing that can be done to speed up the maturing of generations. After all, we're talking about incremental changes in the outlook of millions of individuals over a period of years.