Neil,

I greatly appreciate the both of your expenditure of time and effort with us these two days. Time zone constraints make the possibility of direct-chat for me not particularly feasible, so I'll expend a few more pixels and try to hit everything in the one shot:

You characterized Russia's president as a Prophet-archetype. What about his generation's upbringing (and his behavior in particular) causes you to make this determination? A fairly good book is Inside Putin's Russia by Andrew Jack. Putin and cohort -- which includes many of the key oligarchs between whom the recent struggle to set the course of the system was waged -- come off more as fast-moving risk-taking entrepreneurs (if we allow that word to apply without regard to the legality or ethical nature of their pursuits) than as the bombastic hand-wavers that characterized Yeltsin's generation. Coming as I do from a Nomad gen myself, theres a definite similarity of character traits between those guys and my peers from back in the US. Do you guys look at Putin and think, "he's a lot like one of us"? Why?

Since you appear to be claiming the same WWII-reset of Russian society that others here have asserted, how do you accommodate the facts of:

• The end of the Revolution and the consolidation of government and society some fifteen years earlier
• The lack of distinction between the pre- and post-war Russian experience?
• The internal stability (not happy, but stable) that prevailed throughout the Stalin years
• The demolition of the old order and its replacement with a new paradigm a mere 40-50 years after the war?

The argument was presented that the USSR republics that were taken during the time of the war, after Russian society had already set itself, went through their 4T upheaval a generation later than Russia. Given this disparity in the timings of socio-political upheavals, what would justify the placing of Russia on the same secular position as (for example) Lithuania?

Originally Posted by William Strauss

Dating back to 1987, when the 1982 cohort started kindergarten, heralded as the "Class of 2000," the media spotlight has followed the '82 cohort for two decades. This has led to, and over time consistently reinforced, the sense of specialness of this '82 cohort and those who follow.

Over the years, we have met numerous collegians (earlier this decade) and young adults (now) who were born in 1981 and feel more kinship with Millennials than with X. Among those born in 1980 and before, we have heard this less often. As we have written, a person's own generational identity is usually correct, especially with dominant generations. If you feel like a Boomer, or like a Millennial, then you probably are one. If you don't (as Obama, born in 1961, doesn't), then you're not one. So if a person born in 1981 wishes to be a Millennial-with-an-asterisk, we'll accept that.

Dear Neil & William,

I agree with you gentlemen, it is quite reasonable for individuals who may have been born in the tail-end of one generation, to feel they belong to another. But here lies the problem: It is fairly easy to locate an estimated range of birth years to indicate where a generation begins, but how exactly can you tell when a particular generation ends? For instance, it is clear to see that during the early-to-mid 1960s, a group of people were born who would later bear all the hallmarks associated Generation X: distrust of institutions, worsening pathologies, and general cynicism.

But how, with any degree of certainty, can you seperate one birth year from another. It seems that several well-known Gen X figures who were born in the vestiges of the Baby Boom (1961-1964), exhibit the individualistic traits that most with associate with Baby Boomers: The activism of Ralph Reed (b. 1961); The puritanical rhetoric of conservatives such as Ann Coulter (b. 1961) Sean Hannity (b. 1961) and Glen Beck (b. 1964); and the opinionated dialogue and feud-prone nature of Rosie Odonell (b. 1962). The same applies to the Gen-X/Millenial boundary during the early 1980s - it would seem that the general sense of optimism and high self-esteem that you typically associate with Millenials, could also apply to late-wave Gen Xers. So much so, in fact, that late-wave Gen Xers are often grouped with early-wave Millenials in the Generation Y label (just as last-wave Boomers and early-wave Xers are grouped in Generation Jones).

However, I am inclined to believe that each cohort has a center of gravity, call it if you will, that determines what generation they belong to. This center of gravity is made up of a critical mass of well-known individuals. And it is the behaviorial attributes of these individuals that indicates a generation. For instance, while it may be true that a person born in 1981 may not feel they themselves belong in Generation X, the most well known celebrities of this cohort have defining characteristics that would suggest otherwise. The turbulent personal lives of Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchie, and Britney Spears (all born in 1981 - the last cohort of Xers) and the controversial headlines they are associated with (run-ins with the law, family breakdown, divorce scandals, aimless partying, and hedonistic lifestyles) is in not in accordance with the wholesome and clean-cut persona of Millenials.

Similiarily, the most well-known celebrities born among the 1960 cohort, all share characteristics that define them as Baby Boomers, in that they have uptaken moral crusades, whether it is the black empowerment of Public Enemy's Chuck D, or the humanatarian generosity of U2's Bono (both born in 1960 - the last cohort of Baby Boomers) However, a new center of gravity takes shape in the 1961 cohort - the pragmatic Barrack Obama and his vigorous promise to distance himself from moralistic politics, and the cynical Douglas Coupland, who wrote the defining book on Generation X during the early 1990s. Both of these figures represent a significant generational divergence away from Boomer traits, and thus, constitute an entirely new center of gravity - an entirely new generation.

If we use individuals to determine the first and last birth years of Generations, then you two might want to reconsider the initial birth years of the G.I. generation. In fact, I am led to think that the birth years for the Lost Generation ought to include the first three years of the 1900. Sure, you had Walt Disney (b. 1901) and Ray Crock (1902), but you also have the notorious fugitives of the Public Enemy Era, including John Dillinger, Dutch Schultz, and Bonnie and Clyde. These are famous criminals much like Al Capone and Frank Costello - prototypical Losts. Langston Hughes (b. 1903) had an unstable childhood, during which his parent divorced and he himself contemplated suicide on a numbe of occasion. He was a proponent of the Lost-driven Harlem Renaissance. And like the famous 1920s writers Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald, Hughes spent his artistic years in Paris, becoming part of the black expartriate community.

As you've already read, some are concerned if the cycle is late, early or on time. Personally, I think it is on time. What I'm beginning to expect is that next year, 2008 will be the year a new social moment becomes unmistakable. There are several reasons why I think this. First, 911 had the potential to grow into a full 4t catalyst, but it did come early and the aftermath has handled in a 3t manner, resulting in an election in 2004 without a real change in what had been called the "50/50 America" politically.

Now we've Katrina hit and likely tip the 2006 election away from the government in power, yet an off year election cannot settle the issue, only prestage the reconing.

So, my question is this, is it really too early for an realligning election like 1932 or 1968, or does such an election likely need an even clearer catalyst than we've already had?

Neil And William, you should check out this article. The columnist claims that after an economic crisis occurs, trust will reemerge as a virtue for business leaders, and Millenial workers will become prone to work for more "conventional" and "stable" coorporations. It appears as if the Business World will soon undergo a stunning organizational transformation - in what could be a throwback to the "civic-minded" and "enlightened" cooperations of the 1950s.

http://www.prudentbear.com/articles/show/2036

Originally Posted by herbal tee

As you've already read, some are concerned if the cycle is late, early or on time. Personally, I think it is on time. What I'm beginning to expect is that next year, 2008 will be the year a new social moment becomes unmistakable. There are several reasons why I think this. First, 911 had the potential to grow into a full 4t catalyst, but it did come early and the aftermath has handled in a 3t manner, resulting in an election in 2004 without a real change in what had been called the "50/50 America" politically.

Now we've Katrina hit and likely tip the 2006 election away from the government in power, yet an off year election cannot settle the issue, only prestage the reconing.

So, my question is this, is it really too early for an realligning election like 1932 or 1968, or does such an election likely need an even clearer catalyst than we've already had?

I agree. 20 years from now, 9/11 and Katrina will be remembered as the cataylsts that sparked the 4T. Here's why


Repost from an earlier thread

________________

For a detailed explanation why I believe the 3T mood persists check out this thread

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...8&postcount=15

This is a point where I disagree with a lot of posters on this forum. 9/11 is, without a doubt, a legitimate catalyst. It will be remebered in our history books as the event that opened up the 21st Century. I'd even say that it is the crucible of our time. It marked a stunning reversal of US foreign policy, dramatically expanded the powers of the presidency (to an extent where he could infringe on privacy), annointed terrorism as the symbolic evil of our time (Al Qaeda is the equivalent of Facism and Nazism), and set in motion the series of events that have led us into Iraq. But as S&H wrote, some 4Ts require multiple catalysts to trigger a full-fleged regeneracy. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that 9/11 and Katrina were both catalysts.

Sure, much of what followed 9/11 could have easily had happened in the 3T. New issues such as same-sex marriage, stem cell research, and partial-birth abortion continued to polarize our political leaders. Civil cases such as Terri Schiavo and the Catholic sex abuse scandals continued to sensationalize the media. The Liberal and Conservative culture warriors, having fought on the radio airwaves throughout the 90s, found a new front to engage in battle: the opinionated news program. As Bill Oreilly unleashed a series of attacks against the Liberal media, lawyers, and entertainers, Bill Maher continued to push the envelope with his comical remarks. And of course, you had the 2004 Election - where "ethical issues" topped the list of concerns among voters, cultural differences where highlighted between Red States and Blue states (Kerry the flip flopper and Massachusetts elitist, Bush the Texan Rancher and Evengelical), the media seemed to have been fiercly divided in two seperate camps (Michael Moore's Anti-Bush "Fahrenhiet 9/11" vs. the Anti-Kerry "Unfit for Command" by Swift Vets for Truths) and symbolic gestures seemed to have replaced actual political discussion (John Kerry championing his wartime service, Bush touting himself as the Commander-In-Chief and Protector of the Nation). All these events suggest the 3T was still running its course.

But it is important to remember is that while the first half of the decade was a time of cultural polarization and political disunity, it was also a time of great secular change, especially during the 2001 - 2003 period. Unlike a typical downcast 3T, these few years were consequential. The "New Economy" and "Long Expansion" were brought to an abrupt end. The Dot-Com Bubble and the risk-prone sentiment of "Irrational Exuberance" (all enduring icons of the the 90s) faded, as the economy gave way to an unanticipated Stock Market crash and widespread Corporate Meltdowns (the collaspe of Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen) that shook the public's faith in business.

In terms of foreign policy, 9/11 saw the US transition from its 3T role of "global robocop" bound by treaties and intl. organizations. It was no longer willing to make accomodations for the UN and NATO, nor was it prone to use "cruise missiles" or enage in diplomatic talks. It was now the the "Defender of Freedom and Western Civilization", and was now willing to assert itself unilaterally and tolerate casualties if necessary. Terrorism was no longer just a concern for domestic law enforcement (as it was under Clinton) but was now a paramount threat to "Homeland Security" (as demonstrated by periodic Terror Alerts). By 2004, we had not only invaded, but were occupying two Middle Eastern countries - that's something that would have been unimaginable under Clinton's administration .

Pollitcally, our government was alterned beyond recognition. Constitutional Rights, a national priority during the individual-focused 3T, were blantantly violated under the Patriot Act, with little outcry from the public. As Bush increased public spending and expanded the responsibilites of government (e.g. No Child Left Behind Act, Patriot Act, Department of Homeland Security, etc) the Reagan/Gingrich zeitgeist began to fade away among Conservatives.

As the economy started to stabalize (bouyed by the Housing Bubble), and the public started to focus on the E2K4, divisive ethical issues reemerged and the Culture Wars briefly resumed during the 2004-2005 period. But Hurricane Katrina, the second catalyst in the 4T, arrived. Before Katrina, Bush remained consistently high in the opinion polls, and was seen as a competent leader in the eyes of the public. However, his delayed and inadequate response to the disaster (televised to millions in the nation) changed all this at an instant. 2006 proved to be the decisive turning point for his presidency. His ratings now descended to new lows, and he entered his "lame duck" phase. He and his adminstration were seen as both corrupt and dysfunctional. When Sectarian violence erupted, Bush seemed incapable of effectively managing the war - urging us to "stay the course" and promising that "progress was being made". The rising death toll showed otherwise. His adminstration has become bogged down with accusations of corruption, having been discredited by the Vallerie Plame affair, the Resignation of Secretary Rumsfeld, and the Attorney Firings Scandals. In addition, Republican scandals seemed to appear every month (Tom Delay's indictment, Mark Foley's molestation accusations, Jack Abramoff's lobbying scandal, Ted Haggard's Gay-Sex Allegations). The public recieved these events with foreboding mistrust and discontent not since the opening phases of the Great Depression. The message is quite clear to pollsters: the people's belief in government is dispirited and sullen. This raging discont fueled the Democrat's 2006 midterm victory - placing the Republicans' power at jeppordy.

With all these events happening in the course of six short years, I'd say that we are well into the 4T. At this point, we can only expect to see more secular turbulence in the coming years ahead of us.

Mr. Strauss: I've heard that the 2008 election could be a pivotal point of a

4th turning. Another example I've heard is that the US could face a serious

energy crisis that dominates 21st century standard of living. I beleive it's up

to the Millennials and Xers to speak out if they want to heal the Blue/Red

zone divide by Boomers.

Your thoughts.

Originally Posted by Neil Howe

Let’s move on. A lot of readers asked about global generations and their boundaries. I may be repeating what we’ve said on other occasions, but, in general, we believe that much of the world since WWII and Great Depression has been following a generational rhythm similar to ours. We include here the entire English-speaking world, all of Europe (including Russia), East Asia (certainly China), and most of South Asia (probably India). One proviso: Since WWII ended later (in the sense of the crisis and reconstruction), the generational boundaries in these other regions tend to be about 5-10 years lagged behind us.

I would like you to elaborate more on Russia, because many posters (including your friend David Kaiser) believe that Russia's crises were the periods surrounding the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the fall of Communism in 1991. I would like you to address, in particular, David Kaiser's argument, linked here:

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...120#post202120

By the way, I am agnostic about Russia, but I'm interested in your take on Dr. Kaiser's take.

What are some seeds on how the 4T can be played out today?

How we can make the Crisis turn out well?

What are seeds on how the Crisis could turn out badly from our doing?

Dear Bill,

Originally Posted by William Strauss

> [T]here are a number of contemporary politicians, mainly Boomers,
> who outwardly revel in the prospect of having a really tough
> crisis, even a war, to handle. Many Boomers took large personal
> risks when young. Now some of their leaders seem willing to take
> large national risks as their generation enters its elder leader
> phase.

I assume that you're familiar with my web site, and I wonder if you
believe that I also "revel in the prospect of having a really tough
crisis, even a war"?

I know that you're giving an analysis and have no desire to give
offense, but I believe that Al Gore and others would take great
offense at your belief that they're willing to put the nation at risk.
And there's certainly no way that can be said of President Bush.

I see Boomers in quite a different way. I don't believe that they
took personal risks at all when they were young. True, a few fled to
Canada or risked jail, but 99.9% of them in the end did what they
were told, and did nothing more risky than burning their bras or
marching in an anti-war parade -- not exactly life-threatening
actions. For many college students, the whole anti-war movement was a
big joke, as I recall from my days attending college in the People's
Republic of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

What they're doing today is still a big joke. Even if all the claims
about "global warming" are true (and I doubt it), I still haven't
heard anything remotely like a technology or a plan to stop it that
has even the tiniest hope of making any difference.

I don't think that Al Gore or the others believe a word that they're
saying (just as they didn't believe their parents' warnings about
Communism). If they did, they wouldn't be making dumb jokes about
donating money to Greenpeace in exchange for owning huge houses and
huge SUVs.

If Al Gore really believed what he was saying, then he'd be a lot
more serious. Instead, his only prescription is that you should vote
for Democrats. If he really believed what he was saying, and that
the earth was in danger, he wouldn't be joking around and making
fatuous political statements.

I know this because I DO believe what I'm saying. I believe every
word that I write on my web site. When I was just getting started,
and realized the consequences to myself and the world, I was so
depressed that I couldn't sleep for months. I'm also well aware of
the mythical Cassanda, who foretold the future but was disbelieved,
and later was reviled and raped. I may be obsessed with writing about
what's coming, but I don't by any means "revel in the prospect of
having a really tough crisis, even a war."

My web site has hundreds of articles, most containing specific
predictions, and EVERY ONE of those predictions has either come
true or is trending true. Not a single one is wrong.

These predictions (need I even mention this?) are based on the
generational theory that YOU AND NEIL DEVELOPED in the 1980s and 90s.

The deeper I get into Generational Dynamics, the more astounded I am
at the depth and sophistication of the theory that you developed. The
theory that you developed is so counter-intuitive and draws so much
hostility that I can just imagine what you had to overcome just to get
the TFT book out. Whatever work I've done to extend the theory and
apply it to current events, I could never have done what you did, and
I could never have done what I did if I hadn't read TFT first.

Another way you can tell the difference between me and Al Gore is the
message we present. Al Gore's message, as I said, is completely
fatuous: Vote Democratic and all your problems will be solved.

My message is quite different, and it's keyed off the what you wrote
in your book about the catalyst being a series of sparks, and "that
these sparks were FORESEEABLE but poorly FORESEEN," resulting in a
lack of preparation.

My message, that I repeat frequently on my web site, is this: "No one
can stop what's coming, any more than anyone can stop a tsunami. You
can't stop what's coming, but you can prepare for it. Treasure the
time you have left, and use the time to prepare yourself, your family,
your community and your nation."

So my questions are these:

(1) Do you really believe that Al Gore and others are willing to put
the nation at risk in the way you describe? Do you REALLY believe
that I and Al Gore and others "revel" in the prospect of a hard Fourth
Turning?

(2) When you talk about "turning yearning," do you distinguish
between those with and without political motives?

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Dear Neil,

Originally Posted by Neil Howe

> [The Mideast] has been, at least since the 1930s, on a cycle that
> lags behind ours by about 15-20 years -- that is, nearly but not
> quite a full turning

I'd like to explore further your belief that the Arab world had its 2T
in the 1980s. I don't see how this is even possible.

First, I'd like to ask you how you arrived at this conclusion. I
guess I'm assuming that you didn't read the hundreds of diaries and
histories that you read in the case of the Anglo-American timelines
(though if you did, I'd be fascinated to hear more about that). So
I'm wondering what process you used to arrive at your conclusion.

The single most explosive and seminal event of the 20th century for
the Arabs was the destruction of the Ottoman Empire and, along with
it, the destruction of the Caliphate in Istanbul. This event has
driven Arab thinking ever since then in Turkey, throughout the Arab
world, and even in the greater Sunni world. It ended a huge empire
beginning in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople.

** 1946 Intelligence Report: Islam - A Threat to World Stability

http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e070623#e070623

** In Turkey, May 16 election may bring Islamist President into power

http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e070415#e070415

I don't see how the destruction of the Ottoman Empire could be
interpreted in any way other than a huge Fourth Turning event for
that region. Do you disagree with that?

In fact, the new states that you briefly mentioned being formed in
the 1950s were actually formed in the 1920s (famously by Winston
Churchill) out of the pieces of the Ottoman Empire.

Then it's hard to see how the 1980s could be possibly be an
Awakening. In fact, the genocidal 1980s wars that occurred in Iran,
Iraq, Syria and Lebanon appear to be right on schedule as the next
Fourth Turning wars. (Note that Iran had its Constitutional
Revolution in the late 1900s decade.)

So my two questions are as follows:

(1) What process do you use to justify the 1980s as an Awakening era
for the Mideast?

(2) How does the destruction of the Ottoman Empire fit into your
timeline?

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by William Strauss

Later, the data showed that, among the late '70s cohorts, the crime and teen pregnancy rates had not yet fallen.

I thought teen pregnancy has been falling for over thirty years.

However, the decline really came in births to MARRIED teens, with fewer younger couples starting families. One statistic that people don't often report on is that the number of births to unmarried teen girls has been rising for decades. This is perhaps why many people think teen pregnancy is up, because they think of unwed teens when they think about teen pregnancy.

Good to see you two authors posting again. On this board we have a thread called "Millennial trends that don't fit the S&H paradigm", about various things that don't jibe with the characterization of Millennials in your books since your predictions in Generations: the college lacrosse team greeting Junior in flip-flops, the record support for gay rights among today's teens and early twentysomethings, the increase in pregnancies to UNMARRIED teens, more hookups and fewer boyfriend/girlfriend relationships, the stagnation of military enlistment rates after 9/11, and the popularity of the GTA video game franchise. A story even appeared on Steve Barrera's article page about how the number of sexually active teens was up.

Do other generations in history have a few of these trends that don't fit their archetypal profiles? If so, are these all from the generations' youth, or do they pop up later in life as well?

So where are Strauss and Howe?

Last time it took them a few minutes to compose their first reply

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

So where are Strauss and Howe?

They were just here, but then everybody left the "Who's Online" list. So they still might be here.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

They were just here, but then everybody left the "Who's Online" list. So they still might be here.

???????????????

ditto ditto ditto ditto

so what's everybody planning for the 4th?

Does this forum automatically lock you out after so much time. Seems as if every time I want to post after I have logged in, I end up having to log back in again. What's going on here?

Welcome, to those who are joining us this evening. Here are a few quick answers:

Hip-hop is more a Gen-X than Millennial music form. (Actually, Boomers had a hand in this too, with the creation of BET back in the early '80s.) There are already some signs of the taming of this genre, in subject, language, and overall attitude. Unlike the conversion of jazz to swing, though, it's not clear what is left after you strip the attitude out of hip-hop. What we're seeing, in Millennial tastes, is something more global. Among young composers, and I've worked with several, I hear a music form that seems partly derived from '90s-era videogame music.

I will leave to Neil to answer the questions about Millennial counter-trends, but to characterize the flip-flops in the White House photo as a refutation of positive trends is a little silly. It's quite amusing, actually, to hear older people criticizing Millennials for their flip-flops. Recall how Gen Xers were criticized for wearing expensive sneakers, in some cases for committing crimes to steal those sneakers from one another. I have yet to hear of a case of a Millennial committing a crime to steal flip-flops.

A question was raised about the boundaries for the Lost Generation. An argument can be made that the Lost should extend to around 1902, but males born that late did not fight in World War I. Neil and I considered that to be a defining aspect of that generation. We also relied on a major academic study that revealed major behavioral differences from the 1900 to the early 00's cohorts. See our notes in Generations for more about that.

Did Boomers take more personal risks than young people do today? Of course. In the late '60s, I lived in San Francisco, and the youth culture was driven by risk-taking. In 1970, a research team calling itself the Woodstock Census tried to quantify the proportion of young people who were "hippies," which they defined as someone who engaged in radical politics, heavy substance abuse, and free love. You had to do all three to qualify as a hippie. By that calculus, and through a survey, they determined that 12 percent of young people were hippies. You won't find anywhere near that proportion engaging in heavy substance abuse and "free love" (as defined in the '60s) now.

Yes, Millennials are likely to defuse the bluezone-redzone culture wars. The culture wars have been mainly fought over Millennials, and by the time they reach their mid-twenties, the steam goes out of those crusades. Most parents of teenagers (and, especially, younger children) are Gen Xers who are not as inclined to see the world in culture wars terms.

"Turning yearning" is not just driven by political motives. Moviegoers reveal that when they flock to films with great fourth turning themes, like Lord of the Rings (and many others). Whether influential or not, whether wealthy or not, aging Boomers often mention that they would like to see how the various global dramas of their lifetime will turn out before they pass away.

How can Gen Xers get serious? For one thing, they can address the erosion in the economic well-being of the age brackets they occupy (and will occupy over the rest of their lives). That means asserting themselves in civic life more than they have up to now. They can also get serious with their own families, something millions of Gen Xers are already doing.

How can we help a crisis turn out well? Neil and I addressed that in one of the latter chapters of The Fourth Turning, and those same prescriptions apply today.

Maybe we ran them out? Screaming into the night?

I know my modem knocks me out if I'm on it for more than, what, 2 hours straight? 3? Not to mention "Your session has been disconnected for inactivity" if I type a long post. As I said elsewhere, the pleasantest preservative against monologuing.

Both Bill and I are having trouble logging on. Apparently the server is busy. Hope not many of you are having the same problem.

First, let me take a stab at the Obama question. Bill and I would characterize him as X, not Boom, not just because of his birth year nor just because he explicitly separated himself from the "Boomer" experience, but also because his age location in history (for us, this is the touchstone) describes a quintessentially Xer life story. Unlike Boomers, he has no real contact or memory of the social stable (or, if you like, backward) "American High." His earliest childhood recollections are very much of family and social experimentation, with a hippie-style mom and an inner-questing dad, lots of frequent moves and life discoveries. This was more "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" than "Leave It to Beaver." Likewise, his coming of age into adulthood was not so much a tale of passion, protest, and assertion--but much more a story of drift, self-questioning, and self-creation in a world that offered him lots of choices and little structure. "Dreams of My Father" is an Xer story, not a Boomer story.

Someone asked if we are now ready to say that the 4T will come later than usual. Not necessarily. As we pointed out in our essay, it is not yet late for a 4T start. 9/11, on the other, was definitely very early.

How about Israel? We think it's on a cycle only slightly behind our own. Through Sharon, they had Hero leaders. With Olmert, they've got an Artist (child of 3 during the founding '48 war)--and huge arguments over the perceived decline in purpose and solidarity now that the Heroes are gone. With the firestorm over the misfired Lebanon war, I'm surprised Olmert is still in office. Slightly younger firebrands like Netanyahu, who we might characterize as early Prophet, are waiting in the wings, ready to take over.

On Russia, we'll defend our position. The falling apart of the USSR in 1991 was not a 4T--a crisis followed by a civic regeneracy. Rather, it was a severe 3T disintegration... with nothing really to replace it right away. Putin, though perhaps more opportunistic than many of his peers, has plenty of ideologues as peer: including Vladimir Zhirinovsky and (the late) Alexander Lebed. We have a short memo on recent Russian generations--their location in history and their birth breakpoints--that we may want to share.

Welcome back.

Recently the San Franciso Chronicle and other newpapers published a series of stories about the summer of love 40 years later. It was mentioned that most Boomers lost their idealism along the way. Was it that they couldn't fulfill their dream, or did real life simply catch up with them?

nothing is working tonight

Per the 1961 boundary, and the personalities born in the early '60s, the ones cited above (Coulter, Hannity, Beck, O'Donnell) bear a Gen-X stamp. Individuality is not just the credo of Boomers. What's new, for Gen Xers, is the level to which they are taking infotainment in civic life, along with their cutting style of humor. If Coulter considers something a joke, then it's a joke, and whoever doesn't "get it" has a problem, not her (in her mind). In Washington, D.C., the sidewalks are said to be full of Gen X talking-head wannabes who would like nothing more than to be the next Coulter or Hannity, or at least to get on the various shout shows, say or do something provocative, and hope for the best. That was the route taken by Joe Scarborough (another proto-Xer). Oh yes, 1961 is the first year for Gen Xers, and the famous media people born that year only accentuate that point.

The subject of humor offers a good illustration of the breaks between generations. At times, I hear Gen Xers complain that today's teenagers don't have much of a sense of humor, because they don't laugh quite as loudly at X-ish joke-making. That's a complaint one often hears from older people about new youth, that they don't get jokes. That's an area I know well, given my quarter-century with the Capitol Steps, and it's not as easy to make someone laugh at any jokes with a cultural frame of reference if that person is twenty or more years younger than you. In many ways, one generation's punch line is the next generation's setup line. One generation's irony is the next generation's wallpaper. Boomers enjoyed Stan Freberg, but never found him quite as funny as the Silent did. Likewise Gen Xers with vintage SNL, which many Boomers found the apex of humor. Now Millennials are watching Gen-X comics, from Jon Stewart to Adam Sandler to Sasha Cohen, and while those people have the attention of the young, they're not quite hitting the sweet spot of their collective sense of humor. What that is, we'll learn later.