Originally Posted by Mustang

And this is an important point. Puritanism was virtually synonymous with the middling class of rising merchants. Robert Reed earlier suggested that Southern culture is "very business-centered." But that has always been more of a "Yankee" thing. The South was always agrarian while New England was always mercantile (again Puritans). Perhaps Robert would like to argue that Southerners have fully morphed into Yankees, but I do not believe that to be the case.

Instead of "business centered", it may be more proper to say that the South has been more focused on economics than radicalism starting from Jamestown/Plymouth and onto today. This is due to both the originating Massachusetts and Virginian cultures and the climate of the regions. Especially after the Puritan Awakening, the North wanted to become more of an economic power, but could never compete with the South because the cold climate and the soil type made mass-agriculture much more difficult. Because of this, slavery was not as economical in the North either. So they had to make up for it with industrialization and commercialization. But even so, the Northeast remained the center of American radicalism. In the South, where agriculture was much easier and much profitable, there was no need to transition to an industrial economy until slavery ended.

But even so, the culture differences remain. Even today, conservatives regularly rail against the northeastern (and west coast) liberal elitists, while liberals rail against the backwards, dumb, and anti-intellectual (rural) midwesterners and southerners. St. Louis is a weird metro, being an island of deep blue surrounded by deep red in many areas. It's the difference between living in Missouri and Missourah.

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

Instead of "business centered", it may be more proper to say that the South has been more focused on economics than radicalism starting from Jamestown/Plymouth and onto today. This is due to both the originating Massachusetts and Virginian cultures and the climate of the regions. Especially after the Puritan Awakening, the North wanted to become more of an economic power, but could never compete with the South because the cold climate and the soil type made mass-agriculture much more difficult. Because of this, slavery was not as economical in the North either. So they had to make up for it with industrialization and commercialization. But even so, the Northeast remained the center of American radicalism. In the South, where agriculture was much easier and much profitable, there was no need to transition to an industrial economy until slavery ended.

But even so, the culture differences remain. Even today, conservatives regularly rail against the northeastern (and west coast) liberal elitists, while liberals rail against the backwards, dumb, and anti-intellectual (rural) midwesterners and southerners. St. Louis is a weird metro, being an island of deep blue surrounded by deep red in many areas. It's the difference between living in Missouri and Missourah.

No kidding. And balkanized within, to boot. Just try explaining that you are from Cahokia/Monsanto/Sauget, and graduated from Clayton High...

Originally Posted by 1990

So the last mega-Unraveling very likely began with the Puritan Awakening, a 2T so influential in its saeculum it can only be compared to the Consciousness Revolution. And like our current confusion, the Glorious Revolution 4T proceeded slowly and subtly, as culture war ridiculousness peaked and a quiet malaise took hold.

I really would like to know more about that 4T to get clues about our next one.

We can rule out the others for specific reasons. The War of the Roses looks like a Civil War based on regional differences. Because there was no British North America before or during the Armada Crisis and might never have existed had the Spanish Realm defeated Britain and Holland, we can rule that one out. (You could forget the Dutch settlement in New York as well). It's hard to imagine any naval power that could threaten an overthrow of the United States.

We aren't under colonial rule under which we are beginning to chafe as in 1770 -- thus the Revolutionary War is a poor analogue. The Civil War? America is far more homogeneous now than then, so regional divides between "Red" and "Blue" aren't as severe as they were even two years ago. Great Depression/World War II? Young adults are still learning lessons from it. We have so many WWII-related documentaries, books, and movies that its near-repetition is highly unlikely. If some American political hack decides that for the sale of American "community" or "security" that Muslims be obliged to wear badges that identify them as victims, that it's time to force them out of jobs or to deny them the right to vote... then that hack is going to face stern protests. Adolf Hitler remains the most hated man in history, and he will likely remain so long after the last person who has a direct memory of World War II is dead.

That leaves the Glorious Revolution. I can imagine some people being treated much like alleged witches were treated around 1692; druggies and sexual predators are obvious candidates. That said, I also expect that Americans will question what norms of governance are correct. Nothing says that the Democrats don't have their own version of Karl Rove. We cannot afford another attempt to establish a single-party system that threatens to make the opposition permanently irrelevant even if the popular majority likes the economic incentives.

I see more potential for a conflict between liberal techniques of governance and some despotism of short-lived popularity. The question will not be who rules -- but how.

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

No kidding. And balkanized within, to boot. Just try explaining that you are from Cahokia/Monsanto/Sauget, and graduated from Clayton High...

This is Sauget:





And here's Clayton, less than 15 miles to the west:

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

We can rule out the others for specific reasons. The War of the Roses looks like a Civil War based on regional differences. Because there was no British North America before or during the Armada Crisis and might never have existed had the Spanish Realm defeated Britain and Holland, we can rule that one out. (You could forget the Dutch settlement in New York as well). It's hard to imagine any naval power that could threaten an overthrow of the United States.

We aren't under colonial rule under which we are beginning to chafe as in 1770 -- thus the Revolutionary War is a poor analogue. The Civil War? America is far more homogeneous now than then, so regional divides between "Red" and "Blue" aren't as severe as they were even two years ago. Great Depression/World War II? Young adults are still learning lessons from it. We have so many WWII-related documentaries, books, and movies that its near-repetition is highly unlikely. If some American political hack decides that for the sale of American "community" or "security" that Muslims be obliged to wear badges that identify them as victims, that it's time to force them out of jobs or to deny them the right to vote... then that hack is going to face stern protests. Adolf Hitler remains the most hated man in history, and he will likely remain so long after the last person who has a direct memory of World War II is dead.

That leaves the Glorious Revolution. I can imagine some people being treated much like alleged witches were treated around 1692; druggies and sexual predators are obvious candidates. That said, I also expect that Americans will question what norms of governance are correct. Nothing says that the Democrats don't have their own version of Karl Rove. We cannot afford another attempt to establish a single-party system that threatens to make the opposition permanently irrelevant even if the popular majority likes the economic incentives.

I see more potential for a conflict between liberal techniques of governance and some despotism of short-lived popularity. The question will not be who rules -- but how.

It's interesting to me, given Grey Badger's mega-saeculum theory, that so many people are choosing the (relatively unsexy and largely unknown) Glorious Revolution 4T as an equivalent to ours. If that is the equivalent, then the fact that we haven't reached Regeneracy may not be weird at all, even with 9/11 as the catalyst. The grand climax of the Glorious 4T came some 14 years in!

As for your warning in red, was there a single party or ideology that won out in the Glorious 4T? Obviously the Stuarts of 1689 lost out big, analogous to the loyalists (or Tories) of 1776, the Doughface Democrats of 1860, or the Coolidge Republicans of 1929 (who seem to be back with a vengeance ever since Reagan). But who won a "mandate" against the Stuarts?

Originally Posted by 1990

It's interesting to me, given Grey Badger's mega-saeculum theory, that so many people are choosing the (relatively unsexy and largely unknown) Glorious Revolution 4T as an equivalent to ours. If that is the equivalent, then the fact that we haven't reached Regeneracy may not be weird at all, even with 9/11 as the catalyst. The grand climax of the Glorious 4T came some 14 years in!

As for your warning in red, was there a single party or ideology that won out in the Glorious 4T? Obviously the Stuarts of 1689 lost out big, analogous to the loyalists (or Tories) of 1776, the Doughface Democrats of 1860, or the Coolidge Republicans of 1929 (who seem to be back with a vengeance ever since Reagan). But who won a "mandate" against the Stuarts?

The We Hope In God traitors, er Inviters of the Gay Little Dutch Boy and his retinue of light-in-the-wooden-shoes United Provinces party boys. It was Progress from the Provinces of the Lands of Orange.

And, the House of Hanover, got the "mandate" as William of Orange had no spawn.

The Sauget ("so-gee") photos look like were taken from North Falling Springs Road. The Krummrich plant (where my grandfather was Chief Engineer) is in the foreground, Union Electric's massive four-stack power plant is in the background.

Old Mister Sauget and my Grandaddy were buddies (both Losts). Edgar Queeney created the Monsanto company town from land purchased from Sauget; the town was renamed later. Only Pops existed pre-awakening, the strip clubs came after the old man died. The Sauget kids are still selling off immense parcels of land.

Note: the geographic area is known as the American Bottoms for a reason...

Dad saw an opportunity to buy a house in the Clayton School district cheap; that house is now underneath Lord and Taylor's in the Galleria (once Westroads). I was one of Steak and Shake's last carhops in the early Seventies. That Steak and Shake on Brentwood Boulevard is gone now too, bulldozed over in the last 3T expansion frenzy.

Originally Posted by 1990

It's interesting to me, given Grey Badger's mega-saeculum theory, that so many people are choosing the (relatively unsexy and largely unknown) Glorious Revolution 4T as an equivalent to ours. If that is the equivalent, then the fact that we haven't reached Regeneracy may not be weird at all, even with 9/11 as the catalyst. The grand climax of the Glorious 4T came some 14 years in!

As for your warning in red,

We cannot afford another attempt to establish a single-party system that threatens to make the opposition permanently irrelevant even if the popular majority likes the economic incentives.

was there a single party or ideology that won out in the Glorious 4T? Obviously the Stuarts of 1689 lost out big, analogous to the loyalists (or Tories) of 1776, the Doughface Democrats of 1860, or the Coolidge Republicans of 1929 (who seem to be back with a vengeance ever since Reagan). But who won a "mandate" against the Stuarts?

Despotism failed. That's what mattered. The British Crown afterwards let the American colonies to their own devices for about 70 years. George III put an end to that wisdom, and we well know the results.

Some people have found the seams in our Constitutional system of government and, instead of remaining quiet about them or seeking to reform them, seek to exploit them for their own selfish purposes. If we end up with a Democratic President who serves a cabal without showing much intellectual or moral substance but says the right things to the right people and allows the cabal to shred the civil liberties that we have long enjoyed, then all that changes from 2001 is the stated agenda of those in power.

As we consider the Coming Crisis and its comparison to the Glorious Revolution consider the Invitation:

Originally Posted by 25. 24. 27. 29. 31. 35. 33.*

If upon a due consideration of all these circumstances Your
Highness shall think fit to adventure upon the attempt, or at least
to make such preparations for it as are necessary (which we wish
you may), there must be no more time lost in letting us know your
resolution concerning it, and in what time we may depend that all
the preparations will be ready, as also whether Your Highness does
believe the preparations can be so managed as not to give them
warning here, both to make them increase their force and to secure
those they shall suspect would join with you. We need not say
anything about ammunition, artillery, mortar pieces, spare arms,
etc., because if you think fit to put anything in execution you
will provide enough of these kinds, and will take care to bring
some good engineers with you; and we have desired Mr. H[erbert] to
consult you about all such matters, to whom we have communicated
our thoughts in many particulars too tedious to have been written,
and about which no certain resolutions can be taken till we have
heard again from Your Highness.

then.

And, as now in Our Commercial Republic the sovereignty lies amongst the citizens within the Constitution, ponder the leading lights in the Democrat and GOP upon the matter of inviting new peoples; legal and beyond the law, documented, badly documented, falsely documented, and undocumented, workers and leisure seekers alike to abide within our borders (sic).

________
*Those numbered above did well by doing wickedness:

Originally Posted by upon The Invitationers of the Glorious Time

Charles Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury (i.e. 25)
William Cavendish, Earl of Devonshire (i.e. 24)
Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby (i.e. 27)
Richard Lumley, Lord Lumley (i.e. 29)
Henry Compton, Bishop of London (i.e. 31)
Edward Russell (i.e. 35)
Henry Sidney (i.e. 33)

The first five of these men were members of the House of Lords. Lord Talbot received the title "Duke of Shrewsbury" from the Prince of Orange in 1694. Lord Cavendish had been an advocate of the exclusion of the Duke of York from the succession to the throne; he received the title "Duke of Devonshire" from the Prince of Orange in 1694. Lord Danby received the title "Marquess of Carmathen" from the Prince of Orange in 1689 and the title "Duke of Leeds" in 1694. Lord Lumley was a famous convert from Catholicism to Protestantism; he received the title "Viscount Lumley" from the Prince of Orange in 1689 and the title "Earl of Scarborough" in 1690. Bishop Compton crowned the Prince and Princess of Orange in 1689. Edward Russell had been in the service of the Prince of Orange since 1683; he received the title "Earl of Orford" from the Prince of Orange in 1695. Henry Sidney had been groom of the bedchamber to James, Duke of York, and master of horse to Anne, Duchess of York; he then served as English envoy to the Hague from 1679 to 1681 and general of the British regiments in the Dutch service from 1681 to 1685; he received the title "Viscount Sidney" from the Prince of Orange in 1689 and the title "Earl of Romney" in 1694.

What will be the yield for the present crop of Progressive extenders of Invitation to those New Sovereigns beyond our not even sieve-like boundaries? If McCain, the POTUS, Kennedy, et al. will not get further titles and have political power and material wealths, why are they searching for a new sovereign for the Coming Crisis?

The Whig lords attained higher honors and a weaker Sovereign with Invitation to the Dutchman. Do the worthies of our already whiggish time wish the once Absolute Sovereignty of the Constitution to become even more limp and wasted through their Invitations? Do they fear the rise of the Country Party, Popery? Do advise, why do they, the Progressive Party, again invite a sovereign not sworn to and not their own?

Originally Posted by 1990

It's interesting to me, given Grey Badger's mega-saeculum theory, that so many people are choosing the (relatively unsexy and largely unknown) Glorious Revolution 4T as an equivalent to ours. If that is the equivalent, then the fact that we haven't reached Regeneracy may not be weird at all, even with 9/11 as the catalyst. The grand climax of the Glorious 4T came some 14 years in!

We should not confuse the Regeneracy of a Crisis with the Climax , although the former is obviously required for the latter. A Regeneracy begins when the majority of the populace realizes that the Nation is in Crisis, and bold, decisive action must be taken for it to survive. The Climax is when that effort reaches its point of maximum intensity. For example, the Regeneracy of the last 4T began with FDR's Presidential campaign in 1932... but the Climax wasn't at least until 1943, when the tide of the Pacific Theater turned against the Japanese, and arguably not until the invasion of Normandy in '44.

Indeed, this 4T (in the USA, at least) does seem to be slow in building. At least in terms of the public mood. Consider the sequence: Core Unraveling mood in the '90s, shifting to the jittery 3T tail end at the end of the decade. Then Sept. 11th and the Phony Fourth. Then Katrina.... ....and a ripened 4T generational constellation. Instead of a quite abrupt change of mood, we have had an incremental darkening of the mood. Almost like stairs, going down.

We haven't really discussed the concept of an unsexy Crisis. Are there any other examples besides the Glorius Revolution?

For politics and economics, the Land Reform and Constitutional Crisis (see my Feb. first '04 post) listed by Kurt Horner seems more relevant that the Glorius Revolution.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

...

We haven't really discussed the concept of an unsexy Crisis. Are there any other examples besides the Glorious Revolution?

Dear Mr. Walker,

I think it rather uncharitable to label the Happenings of 1688 and what followed on as unsexy. The heirs of #24 still hold the Duchy Of Devonshire and IVF was not always available. To think that Whigs are unsexy is understandable at the Present Progressive remove; but William of Orange might have preferred the company of men (NTTIAWWT) and his marriage to Mary might have produced an heir not. Yet, I still think in inconceivable that Whigs did not then or do not now know the pleasures of sexual congress in some of its variety. The term Whig may not bring forth images suited to the Kama-Sutra or the villas of the Etruscans but I think that sex between (and even amongst) Whigs quite likely.

Yo. Ob. Sv.
VKS

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Which is why I haven't voted this poll, and don't intend to.

I see the War of the Roses as a dynastic struggle which selected a dominant clique but did not transform the nation. We then had some religious struggles as the fallout of the printing press filtered into the culture. Then there were some internal political struggles as Enlightenment philosophy and the implications of arming large fractions of the population reshaped government. Finally, there were several conflicts as various flavors of autocratic government attempted and failed to compete with the industrial democracies.

While there are still large fragments of the world's population under autocratic rule, none of them are threatening 2GW war of aggression as was once the tradition. As long as there is a large division of wealth, there will be insurgency and terror. As long as autocratic dictators and global crony corporatists dominate government and economics, there will be a large division of wealth. Given insurgent tactics and weapons of mass destruction, the major powers aren't going to be able to solve all problems at gunpoint as has long been the tradition.

So we have a nice gordian knot. This problem seems different in kind than the revolutions and civil wars that established industrial democracy, or the world conflicts which suppressed monarchy, fascism and communism. Thus, I'm not content comparing the upcoming crisis to any predecessors.

This has been a wonderful thread! I haven't posted because I really knew nothing about the glorious revolution, but have enjoyed learning more about it and the other ideas that people have. I still probably don't understand the glorious revolution well enough to post, but here goes anyway.

While it deposed an autocratic king and enacted a bill of rights that limited the monarch from then on, it doesn't appeal to me because it leaves the monarch in place. According to wikipedia: "Since then, Parliament's power has steadily increased while the Crown's has steadily declined. Unlike in the civil war of the mid-seventeenth century, the "Glorious Revolution" did not involve the masses of ordinary people in England (the majority of the bloodshed occurred in Ireland). This fact has led many historians to suggest that in England at least the events more closely resemble a coup d'état than a social revolution". This bothers me because it didn't involve "the people". The crisis we are heading for now is not being driven by the elites, it is being driven by the internet. The elites all supported Bush, it's the people that turned on him.

I tend to agree with bob butler that shifts in technology are driving forces in this crisis. "It is also possible that we are entering new territory given that we are entering the Post-Industrial Era. In fact, I think that the Crisis could have similarities to the War of the Roses and the American Revolution Crises in that those Crises are associated with huge paradigmic changes."

From oil and the internal combustion engine to computers and new energy sources, from the uniformity of the assembly line to a diversity of ideas and people that is so threatening to cultures and nation states, from rule by elite, well-informed, well-connected oligarchs to a well-informed, highly connected populace... this is the new age.

These to me, sound more revolutionary than the Glorious Revolution which clipped the wings of the autocrat and well and truly installed the protestant sensibility. We are not ready to well and truly install the technological sensibility. We haven't even been able to challenge the industrial age oil and internal combustion engine powers. We need more technological advancement. But the industrial age is passing and the displacement of jobs and cultural values is seriously undermining the social contract and economic stability. So we are facing serious problems at many levels.

It's not just an autocratic king. And don't listen to the mainstream media, it's not just about Iraq. It's not even just about confirming a new set of values. We need to decide to give up the comfort of the past and lead a burst of invention. We need another Enlightenment.

Anyhow, I initially voted for the American Revolution because these times feel "major" to me. Like nothing I have ever seen before. But, now I am agreeing with bob butler. It's a whole new thing.

Anyhow, thanks for a very interesting thread.

Originally Posted by jadams

This has been a wonderful thread! I haven't posted because I really knew nothing about the glorious revolution, but have enjoyed learning more about it and the other ideas that people have. I still probably don't understand the glorious revolution well enough to post, but here goes anyway.

While it deposed an autocratic king and enacted a bill of rights that limited the monarch from then on, it doesn't appeal to me because it leaves the monarch in place. According to wikipedia: "Since then, Parliament's power has steadily increased while the Crown's has steadily declined. Unlike in the civil war of the mid-seventeenth century, the "Glorious Revolution" did not involve the masses of ordinary people in England (the majority of the bloodshed occurred in Ireland). This fact has led many historians to suggest that in England at least the events more closely resemble a coup d'état than a social revolution". This bothers me because it didn't involve "the people". The crisis we are heading for now is not being driven by the elites, it is being driven by the internet. The elites all supported Bush, it's the people that turned on him.

I am a bit dubious about the official S&H break out of the era, myself. The Great Protestation and the early Long Parliament had King and Parliament professing entirely different political values, resulting in a very 3T like stalemate. This lead to the English Civil War, which seems to be the primary conflict between King and Parliament. The Glorious Revolution seems more a correction, as the victorious roundheads went too far in their reforms under Cromwell, resulting in the sort of half step backwards common to first turnings. The Bill of Rights is the sort of thing that gets signed at the end of a Crisis or start of a first turning to write the lessons learned from the Crisis into stone.

The official S&H 'New World Saeculum' lasted 110 years, while modern saeculums run eighty something. There is an extra generation in there somewhere. I can't say S&H have the basic alignments totally wrong, but I feel tempted to slide everything early a bit.

I was contemplating the half step backwards phrase mentioned here, considering 1T's. An example that comes to mind is the women who went to work in the factories during WW2 who were collective referred to as "Rosie the Riveter." (Yes, there was an actual woman who inspired the term, and she just died a few years back). Then, when the war ended, most returned to domestic life. This undoubtedly was a half step backwards, but they seemed to be content with the so-called Suzy Homemaker role, at least for a while. Then it was "Rosie's daughters" who pretty much changed American society forever. Yet now there is another movement toward stay-at-home moms, but so far on a much smaller level. This I'm sure was inspired by theories that if one parent isn't home for the kids they are more likely to run wild and get into trouble.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

I was contemplating the half step backwards phrase mentioned here, considering 1T's. An example that comes to mind is the women who went to work in the factories during WW2 who were collective referred to as "Rosie the Riveter." (Yes, there was an actual woman who inspired the term, and she just died a few years back). Then, when the war ended, most returned to domestic life. This undoubtedly was a half step backwards, but they seemed to be content with the so-called Suzy Homemaker role, at least for a while. Then it was "Rosie's daughters" who pretty much changed American society forever. Yet now there is another movement toward stay-at-home moms, but so far on a much smaller level. This I'm sure was inspired by theories that if one parent isn't home for the kids they are more likely to run wild and get into trouble.

I just had this exact discussion with my 8 year old daughter, explaining how the "Rosie the Riveter" generation returned to the homemaker role but managed to instill in their daughters a refusal to accept limitations on what they would be allowed to achieve. I think I described it as a secret war.

Originally Posted by scott 63

I just had this exact discussion with my 8 year old daughter, explaining how the "Rosie the Riveter" generation returned to the homemaker role but managed to instill in their daughters a refusal to accept limitations on what they would be allowed to achieve. I think I described it as a secret war.

There are a couple of differences between Rosie the Riveter circa 1947 and her mother or grandmother, even as she returned to the housewife role.

1. Rosie the Riveter probably had completed high school. That was extremely rare for earlier generations of women.

2. Rosie the Riveter voted.

3. Rosie the Riveter drove the station wagon to the new supermarkets (something women cannot do even today in some countries).

4. Rosie the Riveter wore short skirts, cut her hair, wore makeup, didn't wear corsets, and even wore slacks on occasion. She probably had a drink in social occasions and may have smoked. All those behaviors were shocking 30 years prior, but by 1947 were commonplace.

5. Rosie the Riveter didn't think twice about all those things, even though they were way on the fringe 50 years earlier.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

5. Rosie the Riveter didn't think twice about all those things, even though they were way on the fringe 50 years earlier.

Hopefully, today, Millie the wannabe oceanic biologist would think twice about smoking.

When I was growing up, most of the adults around me, including my own parents, smoked. My dad quit in the 1960's, but my mom didn't finally quit until 1980's or so. There is an add for a stop smoking thing where a little girl encourages her mom to call the quit line so she doesn't have to ride with the car windows open in the winter and step outside during dance recitals. But, will the hubbub over smoking be so vital when we get deep in the 4T and have many more pressing concerns that whether someone lights up in a bar?

Although I believe each 4T will have it's on mark on history, this makes me interested in reading up on the Glorious Revolution.

Previous conversations have called Millies an atonement generation and besides the Progressives the only other example of an Atonement generation are the Glorious. Based off S & H description of the Glorious Rev 4T, http://www.fourthturning.com/html/gl...eneration.html there was a rebellion against a ruling elite and very long 3T like wars (note the plural with wars) with their neighbors. I'm suddenly thinking of parallels between the Immigrants taking over the Natives land with our manifest like destiny to spread into the middle east.

Do you guys think this is a good time line for the Glorious Revolution?
http://faculty.washington.edu/qtaylo...0_timeline.htm

Does the crisis in America really start with New York being burned by French and Native Americans?

Originally Posted by millennialX

Do you guys think this is a good time line for the Glorious Revolution?
http://faculty.washington.edu/qtaylo...0_timeline.htm

Does the crisis in America really start with New York being burned by French and Native Americans?

If you want to begin the Crisis with the 9/11 attacks you have an eerie analogue.

No two Crisis Eras are quite the same. The Civil War was dissimilar to the Second World War at the least because, even if the warfare was consummately lethal in both wars, the Confederate and Union sides were led by gentlemen in contrast to the Axis powers. The Second World War did not leave anarchy in its wake as did the American Revolution. Example: FDR presided over no Constitutional changes and inspired only one (to ensure that no President has a third term).

This one is likely to revolve around economic relationships, and, in the event of an attempt to establish a dictatorship (the Democrats so far lack the guts to do so, but the Republicans have shown signs in Karl Rove) major reforms of our political system to close the seams through which ruthless people might try to impose a dictatorship.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

No two Crisis Eras are quite the same. This one is likely to revolve around economic relationships, and, in the event of an attempt to establish a dictatorship (the Democrats so far lack the guts to do so, but the Republicans have shown signs in Karl Rove) major reforms of our political system to close the seams through which ruthless people might try to impose a dictatorship.

We have already seen the promotion of Health Care Reform. If we should also see significant reforms of both the political and economic systems, perhaps this 4T may count - as Eric Meece (Eric the Green) has suggested - as a revolutionary Crisis.If so, hopefully this will prove to be a bloodless one.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

We have already seen the promotion of Health Care Reform. If we should also see significant reforms of both the political and economic systems, perhaps this 4T may count - as Eric Meece (Eric the Green) has suggested - as a revolutionary Crisis.If so, hopefully this will prove to be a bloodless one.

That's a good and hopefully bloodless way of looking at this. Do you see any reform in the educational system or will that be saved for the next 2T?