Interesting that we are changing our minds about climate change after events like Katrina or the Australian drought:
http://www.energybulletin.net/25077.html

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Did people really pull together? That's what the history books suggest, but a lot of the imagery that we associate with that unity actually comes from sources that we may very well have misinterpreted. For example, the colorful Ad Council posters that are lodged so deeply into our "collective memory" weren't signs of unity -- they were signs of disunity.

When Rosie the Riveter flexed out the message, "We can do it!" it was because a lot of Americans thought we couldn't, not because we were all in it together. Posters and comic books exhorted young and old alike to strike back against the Axis by buying War Bonds and Stamps because people were losing heart, and the government was running out of money to fight the war. (Clint Eastwood's recent movie Flags Of Our Fathers does a pretty good job capturing that period.) Even a cursory study of newspapers and magazines from the period will reveal that people had to be shamed into using ration stamps instead of buying produce (especially meat) on the black market.

You are so right. I don't see how 4T's involve people "pulling together". Two-thirds of the 4T's were Civil Wars or Revolutions--which are the opposite of pulling together. The other two involved religious and class strife.

If we think of the "unraveling" as at time when the cohesiveness of society declines, does it make any sense that it should be followed by a sudden reversal of this process? Isn't the natural consequence of unravelling to become fully unraveled?

In the 4T, the unraveling intensifies, society breaks, there is a struggle between coalitions of disparate elements, resulting in victory for one of them. This coalition now defines the basis around which the new society will take shape. This basis is challenged in Awakening and the process repeats itself.

Elements from either "side" (as defined using the 3T definitions) can be found in the winning coalition's program. For example in the last cycle the 3T "sides" might be considered as the populists versus the corporate interests. The populists mostly won, but not completely. The ended up losing most of their social goals. This probably wouldn't have happened had the other side won.

In the recently completed 3T, the descendents of the old populists have allied with their former enemies. If this 4T is a repeat of the last 4T then the coalition of corporate interests and populists that is the modern GOP should triumph. On the other hand if it is a repeat of the Civil War crisis then we should see the GOP lose to a coalition of progressives and some economic actor equivalent to what the corporate interests were in 1860.

In 1860, the corporation was not yet invented. The dominant economic actors of the day were still the plantation, commercial and financial interests surrounding the cotton trade. They would lose in the Civil War 4T and be displaced by the manufacturing, commercial and financial interests surrounding steel, railroads and heavy industry. Railroads would provide the impetus to the formation of the corporation and the developing industrial economy meant that for the next 4T contest the corporate interests would now be manufacturing, commercial and financial interests surrounding automobiles and consumer manufactures as well as the older industries.

Today the GOP continues to represent economic interests of the type that is suitable for corporate organization. The industries are different, drugs, oil, media and retail sales are more important than "smokestack industry" but the coalition still wants much the same thing. With their alliance with old-style populists, they have the electoral advantage. Their "base" is larger and more cohesive than their opposition and they should be able to win easily.

If there is something to the hype about the "open source" revolution, this could mean that a new form of organizing economic activity is in the offing, just as the corporation was in the offing in 1860. In this case a coalition of open source interests and progressives could be the winning side in this 4T. This can happen only if the introduction of the open source element introduces some "game changing" factors into the stew.

For example, the abolitionists prevailed in 1865 despite the unpopularity of their cause, because the industrial might of the North (controlled by what would become the corporate interests) was superior to the agrarian valor of the South.

The progressives of today can prevail only if the organizational savvy of the open source movement turns out to be superior to the command-and-control hierarchy of their opponents in the electoral struggles to come.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Right now, I think we're seeing the last desperate effort of the Silent to 'put the lid on' again, here and overseas, in matters military and civilian, economic and cultural, pretty much everything. If I'm right this is the last gasp of the 3T.

We've had Boomer presidents for 14 years now. We have a Boomer Chief Justice. Boomers dominate Congress and have for some time. Cheney, though he is a Silent, comes across as a Boomer. Look at this Silent-led Iraq study group. They write a report touted as the solution to the Iraq problem. Turns out it's as effective as the Crittenden compromise.

Although there has been much talk (by Silents?) about bipartisanship, has there actually been any in the last six years? Seems to be just about everything "Silent like" has been ruled out for quite some time.

I know I've become completely partisan--just like a Boomer is supposed to. I used to be an independent--voted for John Engler (former Republican governor of MI) twice and for Fred Upton (GOP Rep) ten times, not because I agreed with the GOP philosophy, but because I wanted to promote moderates like Upton, which at one time (probably when Silents still had influence) seemed like a reasonable thing to do. It doesn't seem reasonable to me anymore.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

We've had Boomer presidents for 14 years now. We have a Boomer Chief Justice. Boomers dominate Congress and have for some time. Cheney, though he is a Silent, comes across as a Boomer. Look at this Silent-led Iraq study group. They write a report touted as the solution to the Iraq problem. Turns out it's as effective as the Crittenden compromise.

Although there has been much talk (by Silents?) about bipartisanship, has there actually been any in the last six years? Seems to be just about everything "Silent like" has been ruled out for quite some time.

I know I've become completely partisan--just like a Boomer is supposed to. I used to be an independent--voted for John Engler (former Republican governor of MI) twice and for Fred Upton (GOP Rep) ten times, not because I agreed with the GOP philosophy, but because I wanted to promote moderates like Upton, which at one time (probably when Silents still had influence) seemed like a reasonable thing to do. It doesn't seem reasonable to me anymore.

My parents know Kim Clark, not as a close friend, more as an associate, or colleague. I've met him once or twice. I know very little about the quality of his campaign since I don't live in Michigan. What were your thoughts during the election?

I've been bouncing back and forth regarding when (and if) we are in the 4T. Here is my current thought:

If we are to be in the 4T, then the effects must be widely felt.

There are two kinds of effects: physical and emotional.

Physical effects would be widespread unemployment (in the case of a financial crisis), violence in the streets (in the case of an internal rebellion, riot) and the draft (in the case of a war).

Emotional effects would be a change in the mood: Like the darkening, hopeless mood that sank over the nation after Katrina.

Now, does an overwhelming majority of the people have to experience the physical effects (riots outside their windows, widespread unemployment or the draft) before its a 4T, or just the emotional ones, or both.

In the last crisis, it was both: widespread unemployment and the accompanying emotional hopelessness marked the beginning of the crisis.

In the Civil War crisis, both: We were all facing the possible breakup of our nation and all citizens were called to sacrifice (a draft).

So, I think that if it requires both physical and emotional effects being felt by a large majority of the people, then we aren't 4T yet because the majority of the nation does is not affected both physically and emotionally.

If only an emotional effect is needed, then I think the Katrina was the catalyst.

So my question is: Do you think that both physical (draft, unemployment, civil unrest) and emotional effects are needed for a 4T catalyst or will just the emotional ones do?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

The Tea Party was one of many protests that led up to Lexington Green.

No, the Tea Party was special. S&H were right to pick it. It was like the golden Mosque bombing. It infuriated Parliament and goaded them into passing the Coercive Acts. It was these "Intolerable Acts" that led directly to the Continental Congress in 1774 and outright war in the next year.

At this point, I see September 11th as a significant precursor or catalyst, but the response was not the correct response to resolve the problems the catalyst exposed.

Are you saying that you believe 911 may have been the start of the 4T?

I see a rallying together after 911 to be an example of Silent "bipartisanship" (i.e. a 3T thing). Wasn't much of the "unraveling" in the 3T a bipartisan affair? Reaganomics would have been DOA if the 1980's Democratic House majorities consisted of modern Democrats. Ditto for SDI and Reagan's military buildup.

I see the increase in partisanship to outright political war between the two parties after 911 to be more consistent with a 4T than a 3T. I don't recall the 1984, 1988, 1992 or 1996 elections as being particularly rancorous. My side lost in the first two, and my response and that of my colleagues was "oh well, what do you expect when you run losers like Mondale and Dukkakis". At no time did I or anyone I knew think it would really matter that much who won. I expected Republicans to favor the rich, but to keep us out of war. I could live with that--as I and my peers were of draftable age. Reagan's economic policies might have destroyed America's industrial working class, but they gave me >3% real returns from money funds (and more from stocks). My net worth more than doubled in graduate school and I finished with no debt and enough to buy a sports car for cash. Sure the homeless started occupying America's cities, but I moved away from a large city to a smaller one in 1981 and to a still smaller one in 1988. In the 1990's, I paid a helluva lot of taxes, but at least the deficit went away. All in all, the unraveling was a calm time, largely free of rancor.

In the 2000's everything on a national scene started to suck. My taxes grew while my income fell and we developed a massive deficit. We got mired in not one, but two endless wars. Our country began to lock people up without due process and then torture them. Political discourse began to resemble doublespeak.

None of this is like the calm, comfortable 3T. It's more like the unsettling Vietnam era, like in 1967 with my folks talking about what to if race riots came to our neighborhood (we were only a couple of miles from the inner city) or the games like "cops and rioters" (inspired by campus protests) we used to play.

I think HC puts too much worth in the age of the leaders. It is the transformation of the common man that makes the crisis.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... I don't see how 4T's involve people "pulling together". Two-thirds of the 4T's were Civil Wars or Revolutions--which are the opposite of pulling together. The other two involved religious and class strife.

If we think of the "unraveling" as at time when the cohesiveness of society declines, does it make any sense that it should be followed by a sudden reversal of this process? Isn't the natural consequence of unravelling to become fully unraveled?

Good point. The follow-up question is, unraveled in what way?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... In the 4T, the unraveling intensifies, society breaks, there is a struggle between coalitions of disparate elements, resulting in victory for one of them. This coalition now defines the basis around which the new society will take shape. This basis is challenged in Awakening and the process repeats itself.

Is there any guarantee that the unraveling stops with the coalitions that precipitated it still intact? There can be coalitions of convenience. Worse, there can be coalitions of asymmetrical convenience, with some segments acting the part of puppeteers and the others, the marionettes

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... Elements from either "side" (as defined using the 3T definitions) can be found in the winning coalition's program. For example in the last cycle the 3T "sides" might be considered as the populists versus the corporate interests. The populists mostly won, but not completely. They ended up losing most of their social goals. This probably wouldn't have happened had the other side won.

But the populists were not uniformly in the anti-corporate camp. The South was an amalgam of social populists and social elites that nonetheless shared some common values. As a rule, the classes were less confrontational and shared many social mores ... as they had since the antebellum period and still do to a great extent.

The tensions were in the North, with many of the populists being first-generation Americans or, <horrors> actual immigrants!

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... In the recently completed 3T, the descendants of the old populists have allied with their former enemies. If this 4T is a repeat of the last 4T then the coalition of corporate interests and populists that is the modern GOP should triumph. On the other hand if it is a repeat of the Civil War crisis then we should see the GOP lose to a coalition of progressives and some economic actor equivalent to what the corporate interests were in 1860.

If the social conservatives remain political conservatives, we're in for trouble. We've seen how much 'progress' the corporatists have made in their effort to burden-shift their problems onto the public while hording the private gains, by leveraging the voting power of their populist allies. Here's the result:

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... In 1860, the corporation was not yet invented. The dominant economic actors of the day were still the plantation, commercial and financial interests surrounding the cotton trade. They would lose in the Civil War 4T and be displaced by the manufacturing, commercial and financial interests surrounding steel, railroads and heavy industry. Railroads would provide the impetus to the formation of the corporation and the developing industrial economy meant that for the next 4T contest the corporate interests would now be manufacturing, commercial and financial interests surrounding automobiles and consumer manufactures as well as the older industries.

Today the GOP continues to represent economic interests of the type that is suitable for corporate organization. The industries are different, drugs, oil, media and retail sales are more important than "smokestack industry" but the coalition still wants much the same thing. With their alliance with old-style populists, they have the electoral advantage. Their "base" is larger and more cohesive than their opposition and they should be able to win easily.

If there is something to the hype about the "open source" revolution, this could mean that a new form of organizing economic activity is in the offing, just as the corporation was in the offing in 1860. In this case a coalition of open source interests and progressives could be the winning side in this 4T. This can happen only if the introduction of the open source element introduces some "game changing" factors into the stew.

For example, the abolitionists prevailed in 1865 despite the unpopularity of their cause, because the industrial might of the North (controlled by what would become the corporate interests) was superior to the agrarian valor of the South.

The progressives of today can prevail only if the organizational savvy of the open source movement turns out to be superior to the command-and-control hierarchy of their opponents in the electoral struggles to come.

I think it's a bit simpler than that, but a new paradigm is certainly a plus. I suspect, regardless of the emergence of a 'game changing' factor, that the social conservatives will stand aside this time, having gotten little for their loyalty but lip service and GWB. It's their loyal and embarrassing support of the latter that is most likely to push them off the political stage ... for now.

Originally Posted by Odin

Gah, I've been in the "Russia be 1T" crowd lately mainly because of Justin 77's observations, but Russia being aligned with Western Europe seems just as plausible. :dizzy:

For another vote for "Russia as 1T", here's a year-end roundup from the SOBs at eXile.ru (US expats, mostly):

Originally Posted by the eXile Staff

This past year was a watershed both for Russia and for Russia's detractors alike. As they used to say after 9/11, "everything's changed." Although not exactly how the West imagined it.

For the first time since Mikhail Gorbachev launched his doomed Perestroika reforms, Russia returned to its rightful place as the White World's Bogeyman, annoying the living shit out of every self-righteous, sexually-frustrated Western missionary with its mixture of menace and mo'. Playing up its new role as something like a cross between Bugs Bunny, the Tasmanian Devil, and P Diddy, Russia is now officially "confident," the biggest sin a country could possibly commit if said country attained its confidence while mooning the West.

In this end-of-the-year issue of The eXile, we look back at 2006: The Year Russia Schooled The West. And looking back at each major event as if it was a university course, we issue Russia its bestest, and most-annoyingest, report card ever.

Below is Russia's report card in each subject in which it competed with The West. We at the eXile hope that by reprinting this report card in an open and transparent manner, that the lessons learned will assist all of us in the New Year.

2006: The Year Russia Schooled The West

Originally Posted by Mikebert

No, the Tea Party was special. S&H were right to pick it. It was like the golden Mosque bombing. It infuriated Parliament and goaded them into passing the Coercive Acts. It was these "Intolerable Acts" that led directly to the Continental Congress in 1774 and outright war in the next year.

You seem to be creating a class of 'special' catalyst events, which might delineate a point of no return. I'd suggest the Harper's Ferry raid might also fall into this category. At that point, the issues became so clear and divisive that with the benefit of 20 20 hindsight, all out conflict is essentially inevitable. Such events might happen in the early or middle regeneracy, and force people to take sides and commit to plans which would lead to their side's triumph. I would not be opposed to creating such a class of preliminary triggers, and would be open to your naming the class. I'm not sure how recognizable they are without 20 20 hindsight. I know I gave myself an internal 'uh oh' when I heard the news of the mosque bombing, but I didn't know the culture well enough to proclaim a catalyst alert. (I declared Katrina as a potential catalyst a day before she hit New Orleans, but didn't recognize the Mosque as qualitatively different from other incidents.)

Such preliminary triggers would be clearly distinct from the mobilizing triggers, such as Lexington Green, Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor. I'd still argue that the regeneracy must be fairly complete before a mobilizing trigger can go off to full effect. The People have to understand the magnitude and necessity of the issues before they will launch with full force into a 4T problem solving mode.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Are you saying that you believe 911 may have been the start of the 4T?

September 11th was very spectacular as a cultural and media event and enabled the military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. When the history books are written, at least those not written centered on cycle theory, the chapter on the Millennial Crisis is apt to start with September 11th. There might be brief mention of a few of the smaller earlier terrorist incidents and Desert Storm, but September 11th is apt to be considered the harbinger of the main act.

I don't see September 11th as creating a full scale 4T pattern, though. I describe it as a false regeneracy. For a few weeks, Democrats and Republicans appeared before the cameras in pairs, each going out of their way to proclaim unity. This fell apart. You listed your own subjective reasons why you would think the 2002 - 2004 time frame would fit better as 3T than 4T. Subjectively, I feel the same.

There was mention a while ago that S&H described a "pre-regeneracy" lasting one to five years. After the 1929 crash, it was not clear that the disaster was a Big Deal, and no special action seemed required. The years 2002 to 2004 might fit such a pre-regeneracy pattern. The spiral of violence had reached a level that people were rightly concerned, but most did not think full mobilization necessary, and most did not see a need to restructure society in a basic or profound way.

If I believed Bush 43 and the country as a whole were serious about balancing the budget and cutting down on use of fossil fuels as Bush has been proposing in recent speeches, we'd clearly be in the regeneracy. We'd be walking towards basic and profound shifts from the Reagan - Bush - Bush unraveling values. As is, I'm waiting to see how profound the policy shifts turn out to be, and whether the 2008 candidates picks up and expand on such changes. Bush 43 has been such an anti-environment, careless foreign intervention, borrow and spend president, I find it hard to take him seriously when he finally proposes basic steps in the right direction. We'll see what the follow through is.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I see a rallying together after 911 to be an example of Silent "bipartisanship" (i.e. a 3T thing). Wasn't much of the "unraveling" in the 3T a bipartisan affair? Reaganomics would have been DOA if the 1980's Democratic House majorities consisted of modern Democrats. Ditto for SDI and Reagan's military buildup...

In the 2000's everything on a national scene started to suck. My taxes grew while my income fell and we developed a massive deficit. We got mired in not one, but two endless wars. Our country began to lock people up without due process and then torture them. Political discourse began to resemble doublespeak.

None of this is like the calm, comfortable 3T. It's more like the unsettling Vietnam era, like in 1967 with my folks talking about what to if race riots came to our neighborhood (we were only a couple of miles from the inner city) or the games like "cops and rioters" (inspired by campus protests) we used to play.

I don't think we have defined the point at which a firm 3T 4T border can be drawn. I'll again nominate several possibilities...

1. The K cycles go into an economic downturn which traditionally makes other problems in the society less bearable.
2. A protest, or perhaps a violent incident, crystalizes issues that have long been a concern. The society starts committing itself to resolving said issues with a dedication and intensity that clearly isn't going to go away.
3. A president is elected or a party sweeps into power based on a platform of sweeping policy change, a rejection of policies held during the recent 3T.
4. A major act of war occurs resulting in full mobilization and dedication to all out conflict.

I don't think #1 will be accepted as a standard, except by those dedicated to economics above all other aspects of society. #2 is hard to judge without 20 20 hindsight. #3 started to happen with the 2006 elections, but let's see what happens in 2008. #4 clearly has not yet occurred. As not all crises are centered on military struggle, it is not 100% certain that #4 will occur. Thus, #4 shouldn't be the sole criteria for declaring 'We be 4T'.

I'm open to other flavors of markers. As I've stated often enough, it will be hard to develop total agreement on what marker should be considered The Marker. I am more inclined to watch many flavors of markers, and note which ones are present, and which are not. I'd rather suggest where we are in the process of becoming 4T instead of providing a yes no / true false binary answer.

Thus, I'd suggest we're in early regeneracy, not yet fully committed to a path of transformation and change, but the society is seriously conversing about how much change is necessary. The 2006 elections rejected a continued unraveling pattern. The 2008 elections may or may not produce a strong vision for a new pattern. Until a vision is accepted by a good many of the People, I wouldn't say we are fully 4T.

Originally Posted by 1990

I know, Russia's giving me a migraine. Maybe we should (flinches) do a poll?

Sounds good to me.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I don't think we have defined the point at which a firm 3T 4T border can be drawn. I'll again nominate several possibilities...

1. The K cycles go into an economic downturn which traditionally makes other problems in the society less bearable.
2. A protest, or perhaps a violent incident, crystalizes issues that have long been a concern. The society starts committing itself to resolving said issues with a dedication and intensity that clearly isn't going to go away.
3. A president is elected or a party sweeps into power based on a platform of sweeping policy change, a rejection of policies held during the recent 3T.
4. A major act of war occurs resulting in full mobilization and dedication to all out conflict.

I don't think #1 will be accepted as a standard, except by those dedicated to economics above all other aspects of society. #2 is hard to judge without 20 20 hindsight. #3 started to happen with the 2006 elections, but let's see what happens in 2008. #4 clearly has not yet occurred. As not all crises are centered on military struggle, it is not 100% certain that #4 will occur. Thus, #4 shouldn't be the sole criteria for declaring 'We be 4T'.

I'm open to other flavors of markers. As I've stated often enough, it will be hard to develop total agreement on what marker should be considered The Marker. I am more inclined to watch many flavors of markers, and note which ones are present, and which are not. I'd rather suggest where we are in the process of becoming 4T instead of providing a yes no / true false binary answer.

Thus, I'd suggest we're in early regeneracy, not yet fully committed to a path of transformation and change, but the society is seriously conversing about how much change is necessary. The 2006 elections rejected a continued unraveling pattern. The 2008 elections may or may not produce a strong vision for a new pattern. Until a vision is accepted by a good many of the People, I wouldn't say we are fully 4T.

God, I hate how articulate you are. You are too good at this.

I agree with your points. We will know for sure if we are 4T once the old order starts actually being cast aside in favor of new ideas, but the elections seemed like a strong sign, especially since the old Culture Wars issues were almost nowhere to be seen, and certainly had no decisive effect this time. (A stark contrast to '04 when gay marriage was probably the decisive issue in Ohio for Bush)

Originally Posted by Odin

Sounds good to me.

Okay, do you want to start the thread, or should I?

(flinches again)

The problem with Strauss and Howe's theory is that there's too much generational overlap as their history closes in on the 21st century. They quote Gone With The Wind and Rhett Butler's notion of pa and grandpa, and how cool the latter is in comparison to the former, his own father. Yet, in the next chapter we are reading how the the baby boomers were wholly a mixed generation with both GI and Silent parents.

I'm not buying it. I've read enough in these threads alone, not to mention my own personal real-life observations and recollections, which hoist up too many red flags. Their theory is much too easily twisted on the whim of anecdotal experience and evidence to have much usefulness to the Time Keeper, much less the keeper of the gate.

They say the true "acid test" of their theory is it's ability to predict the future. Well, methinks Jeane Dixon had a better track record, and her's was equally useless save to kooks like Eric Meece.

Originally Posted by 1990

Okay, do you want to start the thread, or should I?

(flinches again)

I'll do it.

1. I have been through this so many times, but... you can't convince everyyone. The Soviet Union OBVIOUSLY had a 4T from 1917 to sometime in the early 1930s (collectivization.) The Second World War, which they did not want, took place during their High and had no major institutional effect. Nor did any combat veteran of that war ever rule the Soviet Union--shouldn't that tell us something? They had an awakening in the late 1950s and early 1960s. They have obviously been in crisis since 1991. Actually, I think their W W II involvement may have doomed the Soviet Union because it wiped out the Silent Generation that might have moderated the system, as has happened in China.

2. Mexico obviously had a 4T in the mid-teens-1920s, and is very, very close to one now, although we aren't noticing.

3. And as for the US. . .we are in a period comparable to 1929-32. (Interestingly enough, it wouldn't necessarily change the generational constellation at all if we suddenly decided the last 4T didn't start until 1933. Silents would still be defined by the date of the end of the war.) Our political order is in a state of extreme decay and our leadership is hopelessly dysfunctional and out of touch with reality, but our problems are not yet comparable to 1861 or 1933. (As I have suggested recently at historyunfolding.com, Bush's insistence that everything is going forward and there's no need to change course is frighteningly similar to Hoover's response to the Depression.) I have a hunch we have an economic collapse coming at home, along with more problems, obviously, abroad. The Democrats are likely to sweep into power in 2008--but will they actually get the country moving in a new direction? I'm not convinced. We are drifting. What still frightens me the most is that on the foreign scene, what we need is to pull back, not go forward (which is actually what FDR did in foreign policy in 1933.) But although the Democrats are willing specifically to call for reductions of troops in Iraq, they aren't articulating anything broader.

4. We could have a catalyst if Bush/Cheney respond to the Democratic Congress with further usurpations of power, including, but not limited to, an unauthorized attack on Iran. As Carl Bernstein just pointed out, they have gone much further than Nixon ever did, but a Boomer-led press and Boomer-led Congress has been much more indulgent than the GIs were to one of their own.

5. But I suspect something new will hit us that we do not foresee.

2005 was a key year for another reason--Terry Schiavo. It marked the beginning of the end for the theocracy.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

2. Mexico obviously had a 4T in the mid-teens-1920s, and is very, very close to one now, although we aren't noticing.

What's up with Mexico? Everybody seems to agree they are in 4T now, yet everybody considers the Mexican Revolution to be a 4T. That would put them on the old Russian timeline, and suggest that they should have begun a 4T by the late '90s at the very latest.

Was WWII not a 4T for Mexico? And if so, why are they 4T now instead of 1T? Did Mexico's cycle get screwed up, or "North Americanized", somehow?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

1. I have been through this so many times, but... you can't convince everyyone. The Soviet Union OBVIOUSLY had a 4T from 1917 to sometime in the early 1930s (collectivization.) The Second World War, which they did not want, took place during their High and had no major institutional effect. Nor did any combat veteran of that war ever rule the Soviet Union--shouldn't that tell us something? They had an awakening in the late 1950s and early 1960s. They have obviously been in crisis since 1991. Actually, I think their W W II involvement may have doomed the Soviet Union because it wiped out the Silent Generation that might have moderated the system, as has happened in China.

2. Mexico obviously had a 4T in the mid-teens-1920s, and is very, very close to one now, although we aren't noticing.

3. And as for the US. . .we are in a period comparable to 1929-32. (Interestingly enough, it wouldn't necessarily change the generational constellation at all if we suddenly decided the last 4T didn't start until 1933. Silents would still be defined by the date of the end of the war.) Our political order is in a state of extreme decay and our leadership is hopelessly dysfunctional and out of touch with reality, but our problems are not yet comparable to 1861 or 1933. (As I have suggested recently at historyunfolding.com, Bush's insistence that everything is going forward and there's no need to change course is frighteningly similar to Hoover's response to the Depression.) I have a hunch we have an economic collapse coming at home, along with more problems, obviously, abroad. The Democrats are likely to sweep into power in 2008--but will they actually get the country moving in a new direction? I'm not convinced. We are drifting. What still frightens me the most is that on the foreign scene, what we need is to pull back, not go forward (which is actually what FDR did in foreign policy in 1933.) But although the Democrats are willing specifically to call for reductions of troops in Iraq, they aren't articulating anything broader.

This all seems spot on to me. I'm not entirely sure about that Russian end date however.

Originally Posted by 1990

What's up with Mexico? Everybody seems to agree they are in 4T now, yet everybody considers the Mexican Revolution to be a 4T. That would put them on the old Russian timeline, and suggest that they should have begun a 4T by the late '90s at the very latest.

Was WWII not a 4T for Mexico? And if so, why are they 4T now instead of 1T? Did Mexico's cycle get screwed up, or "North Americanized", somehow?

It didn't get "North Americanized." They just didn't have a crisis.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

It didn't get "North Americanized." They just didn't have a crisis.

They're in a crisis right now, political as well as economic.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

This all seems spot on to me. I'm not entirely sure about that Russian end date however.

Chuckle... spot on, yeah, the guy said absolutely nothing save "Democrats" are the rightful heirs to lead America into the future just as FDR did (gee whiz, I wonder how many members of the Grand Old Party thot the same thing in 1932? Oops, I forgot, the racist Republicans were responsible for the Civil War "bloody shirt" anomaly). Yes, Virginia, the Democratics are still Santa, er, the party of the Gray Champion.

Thus Strauss and Howe's theory has been utter reduced to partisan hackery and merely a silly means to an end. And that end is purely political power. How ridiculously pathetic.

Originally Posted by Finch

They're in a crisis right now, political as well as economic.

Yeah, 10-20 years late. I'm curious why. It's a similar situation as Saudi Arabia, and some other countries. (Though I don't buy it as an explanation for Russia, Turkey, or Northern Africa, all of which I have assigned turnings to)

Originally Posted by zilch

Chuckle... spot on, yeah, the guy said absolutely nothing save "Democrats" are the rightful heirs to lead America into the future just as FDR did (gee whiz, I wonder how many members of the Grand Old Party thot the same thing in 1932? Oops, I forgot, the racist Republicans were responsible for the Civil War "bloody shirt" anomaly). Yes, Virginia, the Democratics are still Santa, er, the party of the Gray Champion.

Thus Strauss and Howe's theory has been utter reduced to partisan hackery and merely a silly means to an end. And that end is purely political power. How ridiculously pathetic.

zilch, you have now submitted two posts in a row on this thread suggesting that you consider the theory demeaned, weakened, and no longer worth your time. So why are you still posting here?

Originally Posted by 1990

God, I hate how articulate you are. You are too good at this.

I think it's just practice. The 'Be We Four Tea?' question gets rehashed every few months. Every time I seem find a way to say the same thing with fewer words. This time, the 2006 election results have switched me from saying 'somewhere in the 3T 4T cusp' to 'early regeneracy.'

I also steal ideas. If anyone has proposals to things which herald a 4T, I'd add them to the list. I haven't been much of a K cycles guy, but Mike has been a decent advocate.

Originally Posted by 1990

I agree with your points. We will know for sure if we are 4T once the old order starts actually being cast aside in favor of new ideas, but the elections seemed like a strong sign, especially since the old Culture Wars issues were almost nowhere to be seen, and certainly had no decisive effect this time. (A stark contrast to '04 when gay marriage was probably the decisive issue in Ohio for Bush)

I tend to agree the culture wars issues are fading. The Democrats concluded that their gun control stance may have cost them the presidency in 2000. When Bush 43 made the NRA's "Standard Model" interpretation of the Second Amendment the policy for the executive branch, the Democrats didn't really oppose it. The Abortion issue still bubbles up when supreme court justices are nominated, but like gun control, the legislative battles are occurring primarily at the state level. I'd like to see government stop pandering to the homophobes, but the civilian equivalent of don't ask don't tell seems adequate in most cases. Economic and security issues are of far greater concern to me and to most that I talk to locally.

But when our Red visitors come through, many don't seem to have noticed the trend. Many are still willing to fight the culture wars like Clinton 42 was still in power, and seem to think LBJ's tax and spend GIs are still trying to build the Great Society.

As the 2008 candidates start staking out positions, it will be interesting to see where they take their stands.

Originally Posted by 1990

zilch, you have now submitted two posts in a row on this thread suggesting that you consider the theory demeaned, weakened, and no longer worth your time. So why are you still posting here?

Your query seems to me to illuminate your problem with dissent, save of course, as I have noticed, when such dissent serves furthering your cause (ie., Bush sucks).

I am not at all surprised you are not inclined to suffer my foolishness. Nor to attempt to trump my dissent. Liberals have a contradictory tendency these days to merely silence dissent rather to, um, encourage it.