Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

Well, it supports your 2005 argument and Xenarkis' anti-CEO projection. Maybe it is a stretch, though.

Oh, okay. Nevermind then.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

There was a January '91 guy who posted for a while last year, but I haven't seen him in some time.

My daughter, born in November 1994, made a few posts. Some are under my name but she got an account and may have made a post or two under that name (VAGirl102030, IIRC).

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

There are two fundamentally distinct dimensions that have to be identified separately -- political control and economic control. Fascism and Communism have historically differed in that Communism, but not Fascism, required economic as well as political control.

Agreed. The 14 criteria I used were intended to distinguish fascism from a democratic capitalist perspective. They aren't ideal for comparing royalist and communist societies. Consider it to be a whimsical ad hoc exercise in judging two alien value sets from the perspective of a third.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Once the difference is established, the fundamental problem with Communism as a form of government is that's it's mathematically impossible.

Communism requires an army of bureaucrats to monitor certain kinds of transactions, such as prices of goods sold. When you have a small population, you can do that with, say, 0.01% of the population serving as price control bureaucrats. But as the population grows (exponentially), the number of transactions that have to be monitored grows exponentially even faster, so that at some point 100% of the population would have to be price control bureaucrats.

I don't know why more people don't realize this. Every attempt at Communism last century got stuck in the 1950s economically. The reason is that the governments had to block new product introductions, because the bureaucracy could never keep up with them.

China tried two different methods to get around this mathematical necessity. First, Mao tried the Great Leap Forward, which only managed to kill tens of millions of people, and then finally they went to a "market economy" in the 1970s, where they no longer attempt price controls, but still exert microeconomic controls.

I can agree with much of this with enthusiasm. It is far easier to run a working economy using free market tools than going fully planed. The Soviet Union collapsed in good part because of the difficulties with non competitive planned economics. The lack of meaningful elections to force policy change when the establishment elites aren't doing a decent job was another factor, but the economics was also vital.

Two nitpicks.

I have always heard the Great Leap Forward described as intended to return to pure marxist socialism rather than as an attempt to fix a flaw in pure marxist socialism. Labor was diverted into backyard steel mills which did not produce usable metals. While this labor diversion resulted in reduced agricultural production, party officials announced spectacularly successful harvests, which led to the export non-extant agricultural surplus. This led to starvation. Rather than increasing the number of bureaucrats monitoring availability of goods and setting appropriate prices, the Party systematically eliminated any official who dared to question the Wisdom of The Plan. Your description of the Great Leap Forward is way out of line with any other description I've encountered.

I'm also a bid dubious about it taking 100% of the population to plan the economy. Could you provide me with a few sources? I'd like to see some graphs plotting population of country against number of price control bureaucrats.

Again, I don't doubt that communist style collective planned economies have major problems, but I have problems with saying they are "impossible." The Soviet Union produced a massive military machine. If they had less ambitious foreign policy goals, I suspect they could have sustained their system indefinitely. They couldn't have competed effectively with the West, but they could have continued their system. I would feel more comfortable with 'not competitive' than 'impossible.'

Originally Posted by 1990

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

The problem with all post-communist states is that the post-1991 period has mostly been one of economic success and infrastructural improvements. If you had gone to my wife's country in 1991 and stood on lines to get food, and had worried about those thousands of Russian soldiers still occupying your country, and then come forward to today where every week a gray, rotting cadaver of a Soviet-era building is pulled down and a shiny new one put up in its place, or a road repaved, or a hospital renovated, then you'd feel that you were in two different turnings. I tend to see 3T as synonymous with infrastructural decay. But in post-communist states, you see the generation of new infrastructure. Explain that.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

My daughter, born in November 1994, made a few posts. Some are under my name but she got an account and may have made a post or two under that name (VAGirl102030, IIRC).

So Wonkette the Younger is a 12-year-old prodigy, I see.

Originally Posted by 1990

So Wonkette the Younger is a 12-year-old prodigy, I see.

Well, if you call this a prodigy!?

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...ghlight=Cheese

Here is her profile. Of course, it's a year old and its dated.

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/member.php?u=1115

Oh, so *that's* what all the cheese talk was about a while back. Gotcha. I also didn't realize you were such a meanie head, Jenny!

Having met Linda, I had no idea she had this silly side to her. That's pretty awesome. In person, she's so poised and mature. Or maybe that's just in contrast to my six-year-old?

Originally Posted by Neisha '67

Oh, so *that's* what all the cheese talk was about a while back. Gotcha. I also didn't realize you were such a meanie head, Jenny!

Having met Linda, I had no idea she had this silly side to her. That's pretty awesome. In person, she's so poised and mature. Or maybe that's just in contrast to my six-year-old?

Yes, Linda is a kid and she can get pretty goosey. Just ask the Roadbldr!

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

By Tsarist order: serfdom was ended, the the Commercial Tsardom of Witte was introduced, the agricultural revival of Stolypin implemented. The Tsarist were quite concerned with labor and industrialization. Peter the Great and the Alexanders were at the beginning romantic idealists just as Mr. Lenin was.

In South America "progress" often cames from above from caudillos or the military and the implementations of autocratic King Numbers are often retrograde. Is Peronism Progressive? Chavez-ism? Shining Path Incal Maoism?

I can't speak for the others, but Peronism was a reversion to a very, very old form of government, the "Big Man" form. The Big Man rules by doing favors, holding potlatches ("And the money rolled out on every side") and by personal influence. My state is no stranger to it.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I can't speak for the others, but Peronism was a reversion to a very, very old form of government, the "Big Man" form. The Big Man rules by doing favors, holding potlatches ("And the money rolled out on every side") and by personal influence. My state is no stranger to it.

And those who get close to the Big Man become The Establishment, the ruling elite. So long as the Big Man gets a cut, The Establishment will set up in quite comfortable positions, thank you. A military dictatorship can set up a quite pure form of Big Man government, but the communist party, the old feudal hierarchies, or the lobbyist colony in today's K-Street in Washington DC are all variations of The Establishment's classic exchange of tit for tat, of you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

Democracy does not make Big Man tendencies go away. It just means that if the People see it getting too blatant, they will vote in another party that will do it less for a while. There are periodic attempts at reform, of banning some classes of back scratching, of requiring that other forms be reported to the public. Recent reform packages in Congress make some positive steps in that direction. I am hoping more is done before the 4T is through.

Originally Posted by Neisha '67

Oh, so *that's* what all the cheese talk was about a while back. Gotcha.

My 10-year-old does the same thing with "I Like Cheese." Must be a pop-culture reference I don't get (Spongebob? Some other cartoon?)

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Democracy does not make Big Man tendencies go away. It just means that if the People see it getting too blatant, they will vote in another party that will do it less for a while.

Generally agree with your premise, but not your conclusion. The GOP didn't just suffer big losses because they were "too blatant" (i.e. too much patronage) -- they suffered because they deliberately cut out too many people (i.e. not enough patronage.) To run a political machine, you have to grease the wheels all around, not make enemies.

The "K Street Project" (where Dem lobbyists were deliberately excluded en route to the "Permanent Republican Majority") will go down as one of the most boneheaded power plays of all time.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

There are periodic attempts at reform, of banning some classes of back scratching, of requiring that other forms be reported to the public. Recent reform packages in Congress make some positive steps in that direction. I am hoping more is done before the 4T is through.

There will be broad reforms, to be sure, but not because of some sort of people-powered righteous indignation about social justice. Rather, the reforms (or at least the great upheaval) will come when enough people finally recognize there's not enough left to steal -- when there is a true scarcity greater than any in living memory (cf. James Howard Kunstler.)

That's why I disagree with Anthony's prediction that the political crisis (i.e. the War) will come before the economic crisis. I don't see any way that we'll ever have sufficient enthusiasm for a political upheaval until after the economic crisis arrives.

Originally Posted by Finch

There will be broad reforms, to be sure, but not because of some sort of people-powered righteous indignation about social justice. Rather, the reforms (or at least the great upheaval) will come when enough people finally recognize there's not enough left to steal -- when there is a true scarcity greater than any in living memory (cf. James Howard Kunstler.)

That's why I disagree with Anthony's prediction that the political crisis (i.e. the War) will come before the economic crisis. I don't see any way that we'll ever have sufficient enthusiasm for a political upheaval until after the economic crisis arrives.

Hmm... I'm not sure there will be a 4T scale war of the magnitude of World War II. I'm not sure there will be a Great Depression equivalent economic collapse, either. It may be possible to revamp and balance the world economy such that the need for a Great War is not there. On the other hand, it is not clear that the establishment powers will walk that road without the threat of a Great War to motivate them.

I anticipate blood, toil, tears and sweat, but it is not clear how stupid the establishment will be, or whether the Third World will find secular values that might help them form a reasonable economy. I don't know whether the Third World will continue to fight for the dream of restoring a feudal caliphate that won't be able to really help them should the manage to reconstruct it, or whether a more modern and rational vision might arise.

But I do get nervous when people start asking which comes first, the Great Depression or the World War. That's the last crisis. Don't assume a repeat of the last crisis. Fascism and unregulated laissez faire economics aren't the problems just now. We have warlord government and a global economy where too much power and wealth is centered in the elites. We have too few effective checks and balances protecting the working classes. This is different. The solution won't be the New Deal and hundreds of infantry and armored divisions.

But short term, even without a major collapse, the Democrats are already pushing some degree of reform. I tend to agree we won't see drastic fourth turning scale reform until major problems force it. Still, the Democrats are already positioning themselves as the party of reform, so should a disaster come (as well it might) they will be positioned to ride the wave.

I'm coming to the party late, so forgive the omnibus...

We be 4T, in the midst of the cascade. Boomer arrogance produced not only the Iraq invasion, but the botching of the Iraq occupation; Boomer arrogance meanwhile pissed off an Iran cowed enough to offer us a grand deal, leading directly to Ahmadenijad and the transformation of Iraq into a virtual proxy war with Iran. Boomer arrogance has intentionally let the Israeli-Palestinan peace process die. (Damn Carter and his Silentness!, they say.) Boomer arrogance has caused our government to go from slightly dysfunctional to profoundly so, enough that the cracks are visible and widening. Katrina has caused another set of cascading events to begin, and there are other, lesser cascades occuring.

The regeneracy is scheduled to begin January 20, 2009. This is why we begin presidential debates in three months. Those debates are only superficially about the next president, even though that president is likely to be the Gray Champion. Those debates are really about the form of the regeneracy... and probably of the whole of this Turning.

It is in no way guaranteed that the GC will be a Democrat. It is not even guaranteed that the GC will be from the current two parties. The events of the next year will determine whether the current parties will avoid balkanization. Remember, there were four major candidates in 1860... both major parties split that year. It may happen again.

------------

Today the Silent influence is fading rapidly in America, more slowly in Europe. The Crisis will arrive when that influence becomes too weak to maintain the status quo.

But that has happened. The GI, Bush Sr., dispatched his Silent lackey James Baker to negotiate a compromise on the Iraq War. Bush Jr. thanked him kindly and then ignored him. Gonzales did the same to the Silent members of the Senate last week. Hillary is proceeding with her ill-advised presidential campaign despite her theoretical superiors' misgivings, and an outright power struggle has broken out between the states for primary dates.

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world; yet despite the poet's words, this is the moment when the center -- a new center -- can hold.

------------

It appears to me that 9/11 and Katrina were two halves of one catalyst. 9/11 endangered us physically, but we didn't really feel threatened. After all, America was still strong, our military and government still capable, our prestige high and rising; we were suddenly reunited behind our leader and off to smite our enemies.

By '05 we knew better: our military and government were incompetent, our prestige the lowest in centuries, and we were hopelessly divided. Then an act of God nearly destroyed one of our largest cities... and we couldn't do a dratted thing. Third World countries have had better disaster responses than we showed.

The malaise didn't hit until Katrina. It was then that everyone realized that things were not going to self-repair, that intervention was required. The Democratic victory in '06 is partly due to Republican incompetence and corruption, partly due to relative Democratic party unity; but much can be ascribed to the day we had to invade our own city to restore law and order and save people from starving in their own waste products. That was the last straw.

------------

Next: critiques on overseas turnings!

On Russia:

Russia's unraveling was in fact happening before Chernobyl; that was when the West learned of it, but in fact, nothing went right after the death of Brezhnev for the Commies. That was the time when problems were first voiced and brought to light internally... and not just within the Party but even among J. Random Comrades, since the tight information control of yesteryear was also failing. Russia began its 3T in 1982-3, which puts it almost dead on with us -- maybe even a year or two ahead. As one might expect, the Boomer Putin and his mafia/KGB cabal are becoming more reckless (Russian attempts at extortion over fuel are now a regular New Year's Eve event) and ruthless (Russia's government is recentralizing and reauthoritarian-izing).

I don't yet see what will trigger a Crisis in Russia... perhaps something in the Ukraine or Belarus, which are now the buffer states between Russia and Europe. (The Balkans are being left comparatively alone, as Russia no longer seeks sea power.)

I need no lessons in Russia's increasing economic power, thanks. The steel mill going up next to my hometown's airport is financed by the Russian mafia.

---------------

Xenakis:

at some point 100% of the population would have to be price control bureaucrats.

...unless you have computers monitoring the economy instead of human bureaucrats. The Russians did in fact see the disaster coming and tried to develop a computer to run their economy. But they'd sent all their best thinkers to the gulag (or to America), and they tried to design it to be as centralized and hierarchical as the Party itself... which meant that their proposed system retained the same mathematical impossibilities and therefore failed.

Russian rocketeers eventually learned the KISS principle, leading to their reputation for the most reliable rockets on Earth. Russian economists never learned this rule.

--------------

Mikebert:

No the bureaucrats have to monitor inventories, prices are fixed.

The thought has occurred to me several times that the Commies were trying to build Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart's entire advantage is built on superior (and centralized!) inventory and supply control. The problem, of course, is that Wal-Mart is only made possible because it is not operating in a closed system. If all Wal-Mart customers were Wal-Mart employees, it would immediately fall apart. And the Commies didn't have the innovation to build Wal-Mart anyway...

--------------

"Mexico" can no longer be analyzed as a single country. Their northern half is now part of the American cycle and rises or falls with us. The southern half is still part of Latin America's cycle. Ever heard of Chiapas? South Mexico has been in crisis for about ten years now, but North Mexico was still in 3T and wasn't ready yet. Hence we have the new geographic split in votes with the conservative PAN power base in the north and the radical PRD power base in the south. (The PRI is trying to reinvent itself; it may become the equivalent of the British Lib-Dems, or it may die and be consumed by the other two major parties.) Lopez-Obrador wanted to be a radical GC of the Huey Long mode, but while his support in the south was ready, the rest of Mexico thought him an annoyance.

If Mexico's economy crashes, as it will if ours does, the next Lopez-Obrador will win power... and all of Mexico will be 4T. Traditionally the election of a revolutionary leader in Mexico has led to counter-revolution (see Agustin de Iturbide and Francisco I. Madero); this can be probably be expected.

------------

In the third half of our show, "open source" saves the Republic... and happy inanities abound...

Mikebert:

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.

It's more general than that. "Open source" / "free software" / "download culture" / "Generation Net" / etc. are the expressions of a new means of organization. This paper from the RAND institute points out that all these organizations have fundamentally different cultural features from tribes, hierarchies, or markets. In this turning's politics and economics, most of the arguments have been over whether hierarchies (particularly bureaucracies) or markets are better at dealing with this or that problem. What if the correct answers are neither and both? Networked organizations, like the "open source" movement, permit such a solution -- in politics AND in economics.

The Deaniacs and Daily Kos are networked entities. Like the Linux effort (a paradigmatic project of "open source"), they have leaders, but no chain of command. If you're not a figurehead / guide, you're a "member" whose status rises and falls based on current actions, not previous actions or inherent position. This is a less stable arrangement, but one that is more flexible, agible, responsive, and meritorious.

The Republicans are falling behind in the online effort because their reflex (aside from the libertarians, who have now abandoned them) is to set up hierarchies. Right-wing blogs and Fox News take talking-point orders; Dems, centrists, and libertarians come up with their own.

I've been through two cycles of hype now, having started on computers in the late '80s. My mentors have seen three or four. There are real changes happening behind the hype, but they are slower and subtler. Keep your eye on the tortoise if you want to know the progress of the race. As you say:

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.

Just so. The networks' advantages are creativity and a more rapid dissemination and processing of information. (This worked to the Republican advantage when they still allowed people to speak up.) The advantages of the hierarchies are solidarity and the ability to smash through when a good head of steam is built up.

Of late, the hierarchy has been smashing through in the wrong directions instead. The deciding factor may be which system is better at detecting and fixing errors in Command and Control.

---------------

Marx & Lennon, thanks for that income disparity graph. I'd seen much of it before; the lines of Brazil and Mexico gliding high above the rest of the civilized world are a profound cautionary tale. I find France's Gini coefficient to be the most interesting: I know now the reasons behind the profound levels of socialism and guarantees of worker privledge in the French state. I also see why it's time to end those guarantees, as France is now approaching the bottom of the pack in income disparity.

---------------

1990: the eldest Millenial on T4T says hi to the youngest. :-) And I notice your map doesn't assign a Turning to East Africa... why? I would have thought the Rwandan genocide and the Zimbabwean disasters, not to mention the challenge of AIDS, pretty definitive (coming ~80 years after colonizers finally got established in the inland areas).

----------------

Mikebert: The quasi-one-party quality of the Depression/WWII has been the cause of much of the political trouble of this Turning. Ever since, each party has strived to regain that one-party state, thinking it would lead to transformations on the scale of the New Deal. However, a one-party state doesn't produce such things; Turnings do. Attempting a unity government at any other time causes disaster: the Great Society (2T, Dems) and the Cult of Bush (3T, Reps). One of this cycle's largest lessons is that divided government works better than one-party states.

Does that mean that we should keep the Dem Congress and find a saner Rep to be President? Or maybe a third-party Prez?

------------------

We end on a quieter note:

Neisha '67:

My 10-year-old does the same thing with "I Like Cheese."

My 20-year-old brother used "I Like Pie" instead at that age...

Originally Posted by catfishncod

"Mexico" can no longer be analyzed as a single country. Their northern half is now part of the American cycle and rises or falls with us. The southern half is still part of Latin America's cycle. Ever heard of Chiapas? South Mexico has been in crisis for about ten years now, but North Mexico was still in 3T and wasn't ready yet. Hence we have the new geographic split in votes with the conservative PAN power base in the north and the radical PRD power base in the south. (The PRI is trying to reinvent itself; it may become the equivalent of the British Lib-Dems, or it may die and be consumed by the other two major parties.) Lopez-Obrador wanted to be a radical GC of the Huey Long mode, but while his support in the south was ready, the rest of Mexico thought him an annoyance.

Interesting hypothesis, I'm inclined to agree.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

I need no lessons in Russia's increasing economic power, thanks. The steel mill going up next to my hometown's airport is financed by the Russian mafia.

Interesting you should mention the Russian criminals. I attended (as a translator for our side, no less) a meeting/negotiation with one of the Petersburg oligarchs yesterday. The three sides were: the owner of the company I work for/my boss; Vladimir Khilchenko/his company; and representatives of an American company who, being quite new to the market, still have the expectation that such as Khilchenko would be interested in forming a partnership-of-equals with an independent outfit or otherwise sharing control of a market segment. (by the way, the title of the article about Khilchenko I linked to translates as "Oil the Color of Blood"; it details his 'colorful' rise along with the company Phaeton, and subsequent splitting off to form his own independent ventures).

What's interesting, and more relevant than my first experience being indirectly threatened by a multi-murderer in a business suit, is what I have been told afterwards about the threats. Consensus in Russia -- borne out by experiences over the last half decade -- is that the times of actual personal violence over business are several years over. Outside of a very few, very high-margin, high personal-connection areas (banking being chief among them), such behavior is no longer tolerated. One of the things even my virulently-Yabloko co-workers credit Putin for is bringing the days of warring gangs, 'krysha', burning down dachas and shooting small businessmen who couldn't be extorted, to an end. Khilchenko may be able to use his personal connections in the government to cause us hassle and cost us money; but as for personal risk? As my boss said, he has three kids to think about, too. When it was necessary, he paid krysha. But those times are over, and today even the real bandits have to follow most of the serious rules.

Of course, that's inside 1T Russia. The guys -- and there are quite a few of them -- who absconded to other countries with their ill-gained loot may have different stories to tell.

--------------

Oh by the way; I totally agree with you on Mexico, too. Good analysis.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

1990: the eldest Millenial on T4T says hi to the youngest. :-) And I notice your map doesn't assign a Turning to East Africa... why? I would have thought the Rwandan genocide and the Zimbabwean disasters, not to mention the challenge of AIDS, pretty definitive (coming ~80 years after colonizers finally got established in the inland areas).

Much of Africa confuses me. For example, I know Mozambique had a civil war, but it was so long ('70s-2002) that I don't know whether to put Mozambique in a 1T right now or a 2T. Was the heart of the civil war in the '70s and '80s (Awakening for the U.S.) or the '80s and '90s (Unraveling for the U.S.)?

Much of Africa has stories that are similarly confusing. I need serious help in that continent.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

"Mexico" can no longer be analyzed as a single country. Their northern half is now part of the American cycle and rises or falls with us. The southern half is still part of Latin America's cycle. Ever heard of Chiapas? South Mexico has been in crisis for about ten years now, but North Mexico was still in 3T and wasn't ready yet. Hence we have the new geographic split in votes with the conservative PAN power base in the north and the radical PRD power base in the south. (The PRI is trying to reinvent itself; it may become the equivalent of the British Lib-Dems, or it may die and be consumed by the other two major parties.) Lopez-Obrador wanted to be a radical GC of the Huey Long mode, but while his support in the south was ready, the rest of Mexico thought him an annoyance.

If Mexico's economy crashes, as it will if ours does, the next Lopez-Obrador will win power... and all of Mexico will be 4T. Traditionally the election of a revolutionary leader in Mexico has led to counter-revolution (see Agustin de Iturbide and Francisco I. Madero); this can be probably be expected.

While I disagree with you putting Russia on the 3T-4T timeline (instead of the 4T-1T timeline), this analysis on Mexico makes a lot of sense and explains the change. Northern Mexico has been North Americanized, while Southern Mexico is more in tune with Latin America.

So how is Mexico to be assessed as a whole? I suppose the PAN-friendly North still dominates the country since Fox and Calderon both won. So for now I'll keep Mexico on the U.S. timeline.

Thanks, though, this is a very sensible explanation.

Originally Posted by 1990

So how is Mexico to be assessed as a whole?

Why not find a nice convenient interstate border in Mexico (Oaxaca/Puebla might be a place to start) and split the country up? C&C's analysis is pretty good, and if Mexico is clearly split, generational-cycle-wise, along geographically-distinct regions, it's probably not something that mere democracy can overcome. So duping the majority-turning onto the minority would be pretty seriously inaccurate.

does any one want to provide a comment or two about my post?

Originally Posted by Millennial_90'

does any one want to provide a comment or two about my post?

Don't worry, plenty of posts get ignored, and not too many people would disagree with the core of your argument, so there isn't much to talk about.

Originally Posted by 1990

While I disagree with you putting Russia on the 3T-4T timeline (instead of the 4T-1T timeline), this analysis on Mexico makes a lot of sense and explains the change. Northern Mexico has been North Americanized, while Southern Mexico is more in tune with Latin America.

So how is Mexico to be assessed as a whole? I suppose the PAN-friendly North still dominates the country since Fox and Calderon both won. So for now I'll keep Mexico on the U.S. timeline.

Thanks, though, this is a very sensible explanation.

While Mexico may be two different places culturally, turning wise, there is no reason to suggest any disjointment as their previous crisis was the same. I know nothing about Mexico, but has anyone considered the possibility of a civil war?

Originally Posted by Millennial_90'

Thank you. In fact, I'd argue that there are strong parallels between the period from late 1929-1932 and late 2001-2004, in that following a grand catalyst, the nation rallied behind a president, only to have that support deteriorate amid failure. Allow me to elaborate.

Rarely in history, do you see an Unraveling immediately transition into crisis. You are far more likely to witness transitional periods or turning cusps. In this circumstance, what you have is a pre-regency, in which a society, attempts to build consensus and struggles to find answers to an ongoing crisis. It is during this period that the influence of institutions, which had prevailed during the Unraveling, weakens and approach their nadir. In some cases, the weakness of these institutions will directly contribute to the crisis turning itself.

Despite common belief, the stock market crash in 1929 was not the sole factor that triggered the Great Depression. In fact, going by the standards of the day, that crash was a relatively small downturn. Indeed, the Dow Jones Industrial Average recovered from the crash as early as 1930. Such periodic downturns are merely a result of the boom-bust cycles that are often common during Unravelings (e.g. The crash of 1987, The Recession of the Early-90s, The Dot Com bust, etc.) In this circumstance, this bust was due to the over speculation of credit, which reached record highs during the late 1920s. Rather, the Depression was a sharp recession that was severely exacerbated by the weakness of economic institutions. The reckless use of the home mortgage and credit, Public Bank Failures, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, an inadequate Federal Reserve System, topped by a severe drought and dust storm that ravaged the agricultural heartland, all turned a sharp 1930 recession into a perilous 1933 depression.

However, it will have to take some time before Society realizes that it is their own institutions which are contributing to the crisis. As is common in 3rd/4th turning cusps, society will at first, not demand that these institutions be reformed. Granted while life may seem to be unfolding for some, no special action may need to be taken yet. On the contrary, the public will rally behind these institutions, thinking that the crisis will demand their immediate and undisputed support in order to make a quick recovery. Take for instance, the period briefly following the 1929 crash. Soon after the stock market crash, support for Hoover actually increased. He was able to maintain wages and established a Federal Farm Board that tried to raise farm prices. He accelerated federal funding for construction projects, and contacted all forty-eight state governors to make a similar appeal for expanded public works. In addition, he went to Congress with a $160 million tax cut, coupled with a doubling of resources for public buildings and dams, highways and harbors. Due to his prompt and apparently effective action, Hoover gained widespread public support.” No one in his place could have done more," concluded the New York Times in the spring of 1930. "Very few of his predecessors could have done as much."

Parallels can be made to Bush's initial response to 9/11. Following the attacks, he addressed the nation, promising a strong and speedy response to the attacks. He promised to capture Osama Bin Laden, vowed to destroy Al Qaeda, initiated a Global War on Terrorism, established The Department of Homeland Security, managed to get the Patriot Act passed with little difficulty, rapidly overthrew the Taliban and Saddam with (...initially) acceptable casualties by the public's standards. All the meanwhile, he enjoyed significant bi-partisan and international support, and his approval ratings skyrocketed, reaching a high of 88% in the month that followed the 9/11 attacks. Even when the War in Iraq and Afghanisthan became increasingly bleak from 03' to 04', Bush maintained approval ratings well above his current levels (in the upper 40s % – lower 50s % range) and won a decisive re-election.

Yet in both of these instances, hubris got the best of the President – ultimately backfiring against them. In February, Hoover announced—prematurely—that the initial shock had passed and that employment was on the mend. However, unemployment shortly soared from five million in 1930 to over eleven million in 1931. Similarly, Bush declared an end to all major combat operations in Iraq, from the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, in front of a huge banner that read "Mission Accomplished." Following this, however, troop levels escalated as an Sunni-led insurgency ensued, further exacerbated by the Shiite/Sunni sectarian violence we are witnessing today.

When these institutions fail to make due on their earlier promises, and are unable to formulate effective solutions, public confidence in government institutions will reach unprecedented lows, as the crisis worsens. For instance, Hoover's popularity dwindled once the Public felt he was unable reverse the economic decline. Initial widespread support devolved into rampant discontent and frustration. Many Americans began blaming Hoover personally for the Great Depression. By 1932, during the height of the Depression, Hoover became one of the most mocked Presidents in US history – the name Hoover would become synonymous with failure. Areas that housed those left unemployed and homeless by the Depression (often in cardboard shacks) began to appear all across America, and were referred to as Hoovervilles. Automobiles pulled by mules were known as “Hoover Carts.” As one woman remarked, Hoover promised to put people back on their feet - he did, "he put them to walking." In retrospect, President Truman would later refer Hoover as an engineer who “backed the train all the way into the waiting room and brought us to panic, depression, and despair.”

This discontent would culminate into the Bonus Army riots. Thousands of WW1 veterans and their families demonstrated and camped out in Washington, D.C., during June 1932,seeking immediate payment of a "bonus" granted by the Adjusted Service Certificate Law. Shots were fired by the police in a futile attempt to attain order, and two protesters were killed while many officers were injured. Hoover subsequently sent U.S. Army forces to disperse the demonstration. Troops carried rifles with unsheathed bayonets and tear gas were sent into the Bonus Army's camps. In the ensuing clash, hundreds of civilians were injured, and over 1,000 men, women, and children were exposed to the tear gas. The visual image of U.S. soldiers marching against poor veterans gave the impression that the government could not deal with the crisis. This event destroyed whatever public support remained for Hoover.

Likewise, popular support for Bush diminished following his re-election victory, as the Iraq War intensified, gas prices rose rapidly, and Bush failed to make good on the goals he promised earilier during his campaign bid (e.g. Social Security). The last straw came during Hurricane Katrina. Here, Bush proved unable to protect the nation’s own citizens when they needed him the most. The response to the worst natural disaster in the nation’s history was woefully pitiful. Criticism of the government’s response was rampant in the media, as reports continued to show hunger, deaths, and lack of aid. The nation was stunned by televised images of people looting in desperation. Even more troubling were the images of visibly shaken residents who remained in New Orleans without water, food or shelter. Several citizens died from thirst, exhaustion, and violence days after the storm itself had passed. The treatment of people who had evacuated to registered facilities such as the Superdome was also scrutinized. In the aftermath of the disaster, the government was accused of making things worse, instead of making things better; perhaps even deliberately, by preventing help by others while delaying its own response. A survey conducted on September 2, 2005, showed that 67% of the public blamed the Federal government for the crisis, with 44% blaming President Bush's leadership directly. The poor response to the hurricane caused Bush's approval rating to plummet to 42% – which was at that point, the lowest of his presidency. Since then, Bush has never been able to recover from this event. In fact, the developing sectarian violence in Iraq has caused even more significant damage to his influence. Currently, his approval rating is 32% - the lowest since Richard Nixon’s just prior to his resignation.

not sure which post you hoped for a response to, but I liked this one. I did not know some of what you posted about Hoover's attempts to deal with the economic crisis and I liked your discussion of the similar way the Bonus Army riots and Katrina "destroyed the last shreds of public support".

I generally love the posts here... but usually don't respond unless I want to add an idea or disagree.