Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The 4T comes about when some Idealist agenda attracts the majority of first-wave Civics. GIs could be largely ignored politically in 1938 -- but not in 1932.

Arguably, we have reached this point already, specifically among the more technically inclined of us.

1928 or 1932? 1928, hands down. The bubble hasn't burst yet, hedonism and religious fundamentalism are in conflict. Dubya may be discredited, but he still succeeds at preaching to the choir. Celebrity circuses are still in play.

The bubble has burst repeatedly over this decade, economically speaking. Religious fundamentalism and hedonism are still in conflict, but have been so even past the Regeneracy during the past Crisis. In fact, religious fundamentalism was a major force throughout the entire Crisis period. However, as was true in the early 1930s is true today. Hedonism and fundamentalism are no longer the defining aspects of society. The fundies are reeling from a dramatic backlash from both religious and non-religious people opposed to fundamentalism. The death of Falwell was a signpost for the end of growing fundamentalism.

And as for celebrity circuses, they do exist. But there is a difference. In a 3T, the public is totally captivated by celebrity news and mishaps. In a 4T, people stop caring.

One more case for 2005 is the difference in the relevance of celebrities. Come on!! Even seeing the p*ssy of Britney Spears (no, I won't post a link. Try Google.com) wasn't big news to most people. With all of these celebrity news, does the public really care? I would have to say no. Every sign seems to indicate that the public no longer cares what celebrities do. While the public was temporarily captivated by Vick's dogfighting, imagine what it would've been in 1995, or 2000. And does the public really care for Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, and Orange Juice Simpson? Judging from the blogosphere and from news articles attacking excessive media coverage of celebrities, the answer is no. What is the public captivated by? Real news.

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

And as for celebrity circuses, they do exist. But there is a difference. In a 3T, the public is totally captivated by celebrity news and mishaps. In a 4T, people stop caring.

Indeed, celebrity circuses are less captivating to people than they were in the 1990s. I remember being very little, and OJ Simpson was the only thing on the news for what seemed like months. And of course Monicagate was the hottest sex scandal of our saeculum...that one seemed to drag on and on for like a year and a half, and people never stopped being interested.

The occasional celebrity circus can still captivate people in a 4T: see Lindbergh Baby, 1938. But it is less frequent and less all-consuming than the celebrity worship of a 3T.

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

One more case for 2005 is the difference in the relevance of celebrities. Come on!! Even seeing the p*ssy of Britney Spears (no, I won't post a link. Try Google.com) wasn't big news to most people. With all of these celebrity news, does the public really care? I would have to say no. Every sign seems to indicate that the public no longer cares what celebrities do. While the public was temporarily captivated by Vick's dogfighting, imagine what it would've been in 1995, or 2000. And does the public really care for Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, and Orange Juice Simpson? Judging from the blogosphere and from news articles attacking excessive media coverage of celebrities, the answer is no. What is the public captivated by? Real news.

Gossipy types still consider celebrity circuses safe water-cooler talk, but somehow...it's almost hard to describe, the interest is so much looser in it. People will talk about American Idol or Lindsay Lohan for a few minutes, then there will be a dead silence. It used to be this talk seemed much more interesting than real news, since real news in a core 3T usually involves corporate takeovers, politicians posturing for the cameras, or the like.

All this said, Iraq is still being fought as a core 3T war. Will the war have to end for the Regeneracy to begin, or given the lack of support and energy for it can it shift to a 4T style?

Originally Posted by 1990

Monicagate was the hottest sex scandal of our saeculum...that one seemed to drag on and on for like a year and a half, and people never stopped being interested.

I was 18 and I never started being interested. I couldn't wait until that whole fiasco was over. I mean the cigar and dress jokes were pretty funny, but aside from that ... let's just say the whole cafeteria in the freshman dorm cheered pretty hard when he got acquitted in early 1999. We [mostly] thought it was a waste of time. A whole year of a presidency down the drain.

I'm beginning to think that indeed 2008 will be the new 1932. The more I read, the more this makes sense. Maybe we aren't in a New Depression, but there are urgent outer-world problems out there (not just the war, but a badly uneven economy, decaying infrastructure, unsettled culture wars, a destroyed American city, and a general lack of any civic purpose in our culture), and the society is becoming increasingly preoccupied with these problems, moving beyond finger-pointing and closer to demands for action. At first I thought Bush was Coolidge, leaving office in time to leave the mounting problems to the president...but Coolidge left office popular and Bush will leave office loathed by a majority of the country, in a bottom-up way only Hoover (and possibly James Buchanan) could understand.

Bush's first term was very Coolidgesque...despite some controversial policies he got away with almost everything he wanted. His second term has been nothing short of politically disastrous for his legacy and his party. In fact, there's an argument to be made that we are following the last 4T to a "T" so far...on a 76-year lag:

1928: Hoover beats a highly-touted "establishment" Catholic Dem from the Northeast, Al Smith.
2004: Bush narrowly beats a highly-touted "establishment" Catholic Dem from the Northeast, John Kerry. At first I saw Hillary Clinton as a potential Smith, but the Kerry comparison is beginning to make more sense.

1929: Hoover's approval dips after the Great Crash in October.
2005: Bush's approval, already tepid, crashes (seemingly permanently) after a series of events culminating in the Hurricane Katrina disaster in September.

1930: Hoover's political situation worsens even more, and his party loses control of Congress for the first time since winning it 12 years earlier.
2006: Bush's political situation worsens even more, and his party loses control of Congress for the first time since winning it 12 years earlier. (Spooky weird.)

While I doubt this 4T will look the same at its basics (I don't necessarily predict another depression or world war), these political considerations are closely repeating. If you believe in this 76-year lag, we can expect a sort of default "anybody but the status quo" election in 2008, with some key reforms in 2009 (in 1933, Prohibition was repealed and the first New Deal programs began.). By 2011 or 2012 the President may turn more radical, as FDR did in 1935-36.

Or not.

Originally Posted by 1990

1928: Hoover beats a highly-touted "establishment" Catholic Dem from the Northeast, Al Smith.
2004: Bush narrowly beats a highly-touted "establishment" Catholic Dem from the Northeast, John Kerry. At first I saw Hillary Clinton as a potential Smith, but the Kerry comparison is beginning to make more sense.

1929: Hoover's approval dips after the Great Crash in October.
2005: Bush's approval, already tepid, crashes (seemingly permanently) after a series of events culminating in the Hurricane Katrina disaster in September.

1930: Hoover's political situation worsens even more, and his party loses control of Congress for the first time since winning it 12 years earlier.
2006: Bush's political situation worsens even more, and his party loses control of Congress for the first time since winning it 12 years earlier. (Spooky weird.)

While I doubt this 4T will look the same at its basics (I don't necessarily predict another depression or world war), these political considerations are closely repeating. If you believe in this 76-year lag, we can expect a sort of default "anybody but the status quo" election in 2008, with some key reforms in 2009 (in 1933, Prohibition was repealed and the first New Deal programs began.). By 2011 or 2012 the President may turn more radical, as FDR did in 1935-36.

Or not.

DAMN! that IS spooky weird!!!

So... you guys are seriously suggesting that Katrina was the Catalyst?

Well... I'm actually beginning to wonder myself. I just saw the pilot episode of a new tv series the other night called "K*Ville"... filmed in post-Katrina New Orleans. One cannot escape the post-apocalyptic feel of it... like Starsky & Hutch meets Mad Max. There's no doubt at all what Turning it is down in the Big Easy. Is it possible for just one small part of the country to lead the rest into a Fourth Turning... as San Francisco led America into the Second?

And with all the aforementioned Bush/Hoover coincidences... who knows?

Originally Posted by Odin

DAMN! that IS spooky weird!!!

The 12 years of congressional control part is incredibly strange, isn't it? Technically the Republicans won one seat more than the Democrats in 1916, but the Democrats formed a majority coalition with the Progressives and hence had the speakership and committee majorities until the 1918 election, which was a referendum on Wilson and WWI much the way 1994 was a referendum on Clinton, Whitewater, and Hillarycare. I will keep my eyes peeled for more spooky resemblances...was FDR an early odds-on for the Dem nomination like Hillary, or did he come from behind?

The 76-year thing matches up decently with recent presidencies and especially presidential elections:

2004 = 1928, as mentioned. Status quo GOPer beats establishment Northeastern Catholic Dem, winning points off of culture wars attacks (Smith's eventual undoing was his uncertain record on Prohibition, Kerry's was the gay marriage bans). Ensuing term is surprisingly disastrous politically, and results in huge congressional turnover to the Democrats.

2000 = 1924. A big-business conservative who plays up his rural side beats an overly triangulating southern Democrat while lefties desert to a third party, assuring victory for said conservative. Sure, Coolidge got a majority and Bush did not, but the end result was the same. Ensuing term is controversial but ultimately well-orchestrated politically.

1996 = 1920. History-making phrases ("the era of big government is over", "a return to normalcy") once and for all establish the Prophet gen's control of Washington and replace the more Artist-dominated, diplomatic first half of the 3T with a more fiery and ideological second half. Ensuing term is full of tabloid follies and sex, sex, sex.

1992 = 1916. Democrat wins tough campaign with meat-and-potatoes, memorable single-message mantra ("It's the economy stupid", "He kept us out of war"). Ensuing term is marred by impatience and lack of realism, and results in Republican takeover of Congress.

The parallels are harder after that, as I see little resemblance between 1988 and 1912. Actually, 1992 is a bit of a mix of 1912 and 1916, with Teddy being the Perot of his day, humiliating the Republican and assuring victory for the Democrat.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

So... you guys are seriously suggesting that Katrina was the Catalyst?

Well... I'm actually beginning to wonder myself. I just saw the pilot episode of a new tv series the other night called "K*Ville"... filmed in post-Katrina New Orleans. One cannot escape the post-apocalyptic feel of it... like Starsky & Hutch meets Mad Max. There's no doubt at all what Turning it is down in the Big Easy. Is it possible for just one small part of the country to lead the rest into a Fourth Turning... as San Francisco led America into the Second?

And with all the aforementioned Bush/Hoover coincidences... who knows?

Remember, though, it's not the event, it's the public reaction. Katrina could have just been a hurricane, but instead it was the final event in the obvious (even then) change in the political winds during 2005. Before Katrina, people said "Screw the government, people should handle their own problems". Now suddenly it's public consensus that the federal government simply HAS to be an aggressive and effective force. Libertarianism is clearly being replaced by a new kind of mandate for good government. Whether this is the real thing or not remains to be seen, but the signs are there.

Originally Posted by 1990

The 76-year thing matches up decently with recent presidencies and especially presidential elections...
The parallels are harder after that, as I see little resemblance between 1988 and 1912.

However things turn, we must keep our political bias in check. The GOP suck, we all know that. And those evil Bushitler bastards are doomed. We all know that too.

But we must continue to look at this cycle business fairly and objectively. Right?

Originally Posted by Odin

DAMN! that IS spooky weird!!!

I concur. Hope it's not the End Times.......

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

So... you guys are seriously suggesting that Katrina was the Catalyst?

Well... I'm actually beginning to wonder myself. I just saw the pilot episode of a new tv series the other night called "K*Ville"... filmed in post-Katrina New Orleans. One cannot escape the post-apocalyptic feel of it... like Starsky & Hutch meets Mad Max. There's no doubt at all what Turning it is down in the Big Easy. Is it possible for just one small part of the country to lead the rest into a Fourth Turning... as San Francisco led America into the Second?

And with all the aforementioned Bush/Hoover coincidences... who knows?

I caught the pilot of that show. One thing that struck me was the thought hat the hero was SO in for a lawsuit and having his badge pulled over that stunt with the murder suspect - but no, not so far. (Maybe next week?)

Oh, yes, very much post-toastie. But then, I understand a lot of New Orleans still is.

These are all not-too-bizarre flimsy coincidences mixed with selection bias. But I think you all already knew that.

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

Arguably, we have reached this point already, specifically among the more technically inclined of us.



The bubble has burst repeatedly over this decade, economically speaking. Religious fundamentalism and hedonism are still in conflict, but have been so even past the Regeneracy during the past Crisis. In fact, religious fundamentalism was a major force throughout the entire Crisis period. However, as was true in the early 1930s is true today. Hedonism and fundamentalism are no longer the defining aspects of society. The fundies are reeling from a dramatic backlash from both religious and non-religious people opposed to fundamentalism. The death of Falwell was a signpost for the end of growing fundamentalism.

And as for celebrity circuses, they do exist. But there is a difference. In a 3T, the public is totally captivated by celebrity news and mishaps. In a 4T, people stop caring.

One more case for 2005 is the difference in the relevance of celebrities. Come on!! Even seeing the p*ssy of Britney Spears (no, I won't post a link. Try Google.com) wasn't big news to most people. With all of these celebrity news, does the public really care? I would have to say no. Every sign seems to indicate that the public no longer cares what celebrities do. While the public was temporarily captivated by Vick's dogfighting, imagine what it would've been in 1995, or 2000. And does the public really care for Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, and Orange Juice Simpson? Judging from the blogosphere and from news articles attacking excessive media coverage of celebrities, the answer is no. What is the public captivated by? Real news.

You may be right about 2008; I am still thinking of 2007, and I tend to go with an eighty-year cycle, so I see 2007 more like 1927 than like 1931. We have eighty-year-old politicians and journalists as were rare in the late 1920s. That might cause this Saeculum to be dragged out more than the last one... but not much more than the last one. There's a limit to life expectancy, and I don't expect Mike Wallace or Robert Byrd to be around ten years from now.

I'm beginning to believe that the war in Iraq has prevented a bursting of the economic bubble. Enough people are wildly successful that the pauperization of the masses can be concealed in the crudest economic statistics. It's Bill Gates taking a stroll among skid-row denizens; put a hundred destitute people and Bill Gates together and they on average all have more than ten million dollars.

To be sure, we Americans largely refuse to consider ourselves analogous to skid-row drunks... but most of us are getting poorer because we are 'drunk' on credit. It's as if for most of us the only nourishment available is ethyl alcohol (beer, jug wine, rotgut whiskey)... and when we are almost all badly underpaid we will grasp at the pretended generosity of lenders. To get enough calories from alcohol to support one's metabolism one must drink to drunkenness.

Originally Posted by 1990

Bush's first term was very Coolidgesque...despite some controversial policies he got away with almost everything he wanted. His second term has been nothing short of politically disastrous for his legacy and his party. In fact, there's an argument to be made that we are following the last 4T to a "T" so far...on a 76-year lag:

1928: Hoover beats a highly-touted "establishment" Catholic Dem from the Northeast, Al Smith.
2004: Bush narrowly beats a highly-touted "establishment" Catholic Dem from the Northeast, John Kerry. At first I saw Hillary Clinton as a potential Smith, but the Kerry comparison is beginning to make more sense.

1929: Hoover's approval dips after the Great Crash in October.
2005: Bush's approval, already tepid, crashes (seemingly permanently) after a series of events culminating in the Hurricane Katrina disaster in September.

1930: Hoover's political situation worsens even more, and his party loses control of Congress for the first time since winning it 12 years earlier.
2006: Bush's political situation worsens even more, and his party loses control of Congress for the first time since winning it 12 years earlier. (Spooky weird.)

While I doubt this 4T will look the same at its basics (I don't necessarily predict another depression or world war), these political considerations are closely repeating. If you believe in this 76-year lag, we can expect a sort of default "anybody but the status quo" election in 2008, with some key reforms in 2009 (in 1933, Prohibition was repealed and the first New Deal programs began.). By 2011 or 2012 the President may turn more radical, as FDR did in 1935-36.

Or not.

Without the profitable disaster of the War in Iraq, we would likely have a very nasty recession. The oil cartel profits mightily from imposing cost-plus inflation upon us, and the arms merchants have a racket going. Unjust as it seems, some of the questionable benefit trickles down. Remember, though, the Reagan-era mantra that the government can't do anything 'for' us until it has done something 'to' us, as in imposing taxes or allowing rapacious elites to get their money-grabbing paws onto our wealth.

The war may have saved Dubya from being the new Herbert Hoover... and he needs his war to keep unemployed masses from staging giant protests.

Of course, the return of Democrats to the majority reflects more contempt for corruption and abuse of power than economic distress.

I Thin 2008 resembles 1930 rather than 1928 or 1932. While the presidential situation resembles the run up to the 1932 election. The economic situation resembles 1929.

Can anyone explain...if Congress is even less popular than Bush, why are the Republicans still unilaterally self-destructing? Look at each congressional race. Every week another competitive Republican seat, usually in the West or Midwest, opens up, and Democrats are doing better in all these races. For some reason, Dems are poised to easily expand their (supposedly very unpopular) majorities.

If this election is more like 1928, the Dems' strangely easy advantage will surely be erased. If it's more like 1932, this autopilot luck will continue.

Originally Posted by 1990

Can anyone explain...if Congress is even less popular than Bush, why are the Republicans still unilaterally self-destructing? Look at each congressional race. Every week another competitive Republican seat, usually in the West or Midwest, opens up, and Democrats are doing better in all these races. For some reason, Dems are poised to easily expand their (supposedly very unpopular) majorities.

If this election is more like 1928, the Dems' strangely easy advantage will surely be erased. If it's more like 1932, this autopilot luck will continue.

It might be equivalent to both, I read on wikipedia that voting age in the 20's and 30's was still 21. Today the voting age is 18. This would have the effect that millies would begin influencing the electoral results slightly earlier on the saeculum than GIs did.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

It might be equivalent to both, I read on wikipedia that voting age in the 20's and 30's was still 21. Today the voting age is 18. This would have the effect that millies would begin influencing the electoral results slightly earlier on the saeculum than GIs did.

18 year olds were given the right to vote in 1971.

Originally Posted by 1990

Can anyone explain...if Congress is even less popular than Bush, why are the Republicans still unilaterally self-destructing? Look at each congressional race. Every week another competitive Republican seat, usually in the West or Midwest, opens up, and Democrats are doing better in all these races. For some reason, Dems are poised to easily expand their (supposedly very unpopular) majorities.

Structurally, the USA is a presidential republic. This means that until January, 2009 the Republicans are going to remain for all practical purposes the governing party. That doesn't mean that the Democratic win last year was for naught, far from it. At least now the executive is being held to some accountability by the Waxman investigations and this can be seen in the subsequent resignations of a number of Bush aides. Next year, the Republicans in Congress are going to be faced with the delemna of choosing between remaining loyal to their unpopular president and trying to save their own seats by moving to the center as the country has done post Katrina. It should be interesting.

Originally Posted by 1990

I'm beginning to think that indeed 2008 will be the new 1932. The more I read, the more this makes sense. Maybe we aren't in a New Depression, but there are urgent outer-world problems out there (not just the war, but a badly uneven economy, decaying infrastructure, unsettled culture wars, a destroyed American city, and a general lack of any civic purpose in our culture), and the society is becoming increasingly preoccupied with these problems, moving beyond finger-pointing and closer to demands for action. At first I thought Bush was Coolidge, leaving office in time to leave the mounting problems to the president...but Coolidge left office popular and Bush will leave office loathed by a majority of the country, in a bottom-up way only Hoover (and possibly James Buchanan) could understand.

Bush's first term was very Coolidgesque...despite some controversial policies he got away with almost everything he wanted. His second term has been nothing short of politically disastrous for his legacy and his party. In fact, there's an argument to be made that we are following the last 4T to a "T" so far...on a 76-year lag:

1928: Hoover beats a highly-touted "establishment" Catholic Dem from the Northeast, Al Smith.
2004: Bush narrowly beats a highly-touted "establishment" Catholic Dem from the Northeast, John Kerry. At first I saw Hillary Clinton as a potential Smith, but the Kerry comparison is beginning to make more sense.

1929: Hoover's approval dips after the Great Crash in October.
2005: Bush's approval, already tepid, crashes (seemingly permanently) after a series of events culminating in the Hurricane Katrina disaster in September.

1930: Hoover's political situation worsens even more, and his party loses control of Congress for the first time since winning it 12 years earlier.
2006: Bush's political situation worsens even more, and his party loses control of Congress for the first time since winning it 12 years earlier. (Spooky weird.)

While I doubt this 4T will look the same at its basics (I don't necessarily predict another depression or world war), these political considerations are closely repeating. If you believe in this 76-year lag, we can expect a sort of default "anybody but the status quo" election in 2008, with some key reforms in 2009 (in 1933, Prohibition was repealed and the first New Deal programs began.). By 2011 or 2012 the President may turn more radical, as FDR did in 1935-36.

Or not.

Ditto w/Odin! This scares me.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

18 year olds were given the right to vote in 1971.

However, even prior to that the voting age was 18 in Georgia and Kentucky, 19 in Alaska, and 20 in New Hampshire and Hawaii.

Originally Posted by 1990

Can anyone explain...if Congress is even less popular than Bush, why are the Republicans still unilaterally self-destructing? Look at each congressional race. Every week another competitive Republican seat, usually in the West or Midwest, opens up, and Democrats are doing better in all these races. For some reason, Dems are poised to easily expand their (supposedly very unpopular) majorities.

If this election is more like 1928, the Dems' strangely easy advantage will surely be erased. If it's more like 1932, this autopilot luck will continue.

In another thread, I posted some statistics that showed that the Democrats in Congress were less unpopular than the President and the Republicans in Congress were even more unpopular. So yeah, because Republican Congressional Representatives and Senators are more unpopular than their Democratic counterparts, that's why the Republican party is in trouble.