Someone else, ignorant of generational theory (Or he wouldn't call 1890 and 1968 'crises'), sees the parallel with the last Moral Crisis.

http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2008/...e-of-evil.html

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Someone else, ignorant of generational theory (Or he wouldn't call 1890 and 1968 'crises'), sees the parallel with the last Moral Crisis.

http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2008/...e-of-evil.html

Well, 1890 and 1968 were turbulent Awakening years, when the social standards were challenged. You could call them "spiritual crisis" years.

Originally Posted by JDW

It makes sense that the highly segregated areas would have a strong party loyalty. It seems to me, though, that the party loyalty is strong even where integration has been fairly successful. What do you attribute that too? (Or is my observation wrong?)

Sorry for the long time. I've been VERY busy. But that is simply because of what happened in the 1960s. The Democrats supported Civil Rights, while the Republicans fought to keep Jim Crow in place. Those Democrats who fought for white supremacy defected to the Republican Party. Because of this, blacks of Boomer age and up are loyal to the Democrats. For people of that age, the image of the racist Republican Party will be almost impossible to shake. And people such as Condi Rice are oreos. Although I am very opposed to Rice's politics, I do believe that she is a necessary step in the racial progress of this nation.

When you get down to the black Xers, the party loyalty is not nearly as strong. The Hip Hop Generation is FAR more likely to vote Republican than the older blacks, and is less supportive of the Democrats as a whole, preferring to be independents.

As for black Millennials, the fact that their parents vote Democrat definitely fuels their own voting preferences. But their support is for kinda different reasons. Unlike older generations, which (except for the GIs) had a strong divide between the Republicans and Democrats, the Millennials are showing unusual solidarity in support of Obama. So it will be harder to divide the white and black Millennials. I doubt that black Millennials will have a racial party loyalty in the way that Boomers had. Consider that before FDR, the vast majority of blacks who were not subject to Jim Crow voter disenfranchisement voted Republican for the simple reason that the GOP was "The Party of Lincoln". But that all changed in the 1930s, when Democrats started to address concerns of importance to African Americans (which hasn't happened since the end of Reconstruction). So, if the right leader comes around, black Millennials could defect to the Republican Party. Especially today, racial issues will be less pronounced for Millennials, so party loyalty based upon 1960s Civil Rights victories will be much harder to come by.

It's kind of a two-edged sword that blacks would prefer privacy from whites in dealing with their problems. On one hand, I can certainly understand and respect that. It's probably not a whole lot of fun for you to hear Bill Cosby's words repeated by white radio talk show hosts. On the other hand, it causes whites to feel that racial healing is a one-sided affair, when all we hear is Jesse Jackson telling us we are all a bunch of racists (as though he isn't). I understand of course that it's not the black community, but the media, that controls Jesse Jackson's exposure. I'm just wondering what it will take to get us all on the same page. Are Millennials going to be the ones to work this one out?

I think so. After reading Millennials and the Pop Culture, the authors reinforced my view that we will partake, and lead the biggest revolutionary changes to the media infrastructure since the 1930s. With this, it would be very hard for Jesse Jackson to remain in the spotlight.

I've read the book Getting Beyond Race. In it, it states that the biggest leaps in racial healing take place when blacks and whites work together to solve a common problem. He used many examples, including WWII, the integration of the military, etc. Given that we are in a Fourth Turning at this point, it is not hard to imagine that this will occur. And it is because of this that race relations will improve.

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

The Democrats supported Civil Rights, while the Republicans fought to keep Jim Crow in place.

May I correct the record here, for the umpteenth time, just for history's sake? During the "long hot summer" of 1964, one was likely to hear the following sound-bite on their radio while sitting in a traffic jam:

"The President is," charged Bill McCulloch (Republican-Ohio), who wrote the House version of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, "more interested in passing a tax bill to benefit some segments of the economy than in passing a civil rights bill for all of us."

Yes, it's true. As a matter of indisputable public record, LBJ not only placed his massive tax cut plan for the rich way ahead of his Civil Rights bill, but without REPUBLICAN support LBJ's Civil Rights bill would have never seen the light of day (click here for details).

Mr. Reed is not only factually wrong, with regards to his sorid historical charge, he is willfully engaging in pure partisan race baiting: "Hey, vote Democrat, folks, coz we black folks got 'em in our frickin' back pocket!" is his gross message.

Shame the race baiter, not the baitee, my 4T friends (deaf ears).

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

Sorry for the long time. I've been VERY busy. But that is simply because of what happened in the 1960s. The Democrats supported Civil Rights, while the Republicans fought to keep Jim Crow in place. Those Democrats who fought for white supremacy defected to the Republican Party. Because of this, blacks of Boomer age and up are loyal to the Democrats. For people of that age, the image of the racist Republican Party will be almost impossible to shake.

Zilch already mentioned it, but Jim Crow had nothing to do with the Republicans and everything to do with racist Democrats. I really feel that blacks have been sold a bill of goods on that one. The DNC has been very effective at revising history.

During the '60s and '70s, the Democrat Party pursued the illogical game of appealing both to blacks and institutional racists. The racists had the political connections, while the blacks (to put it bluntly) were given a quart of liquor, a bus ride and instructions on how to vote a straight Democrat ticket.

As blacks became better educated and more politically aware, the DNC had to change strategy. They accomplished this by ignoring the true history of Civil Rights and portraying the GOP as the racists. True, a significant portion of the southern racists switched to the GOP as a result, but I personally did not observe this happening until the '90s, and only because the Democrats could no longer figure out how to hold on to them and the blacks at the same time.

On the other hand, many of those racists remained Democrats but have been able to hide their motives. I knew these people in college. They belonged to white fraternities, were very condescending toward blacks and black fraternities, and today are very still loyal Democrats. They tend to benefit from industries or professions to which liberalism is friendly: litigation, alchohol, entertainment and finance, to name a few. They are still politically connected, and I can't see where they would have any interest in helping blacks to break the cycle. I understand that it is unfair to accuse all white liberals as having hidden racist motives, just as it is unfair to paint Republicans with that brush. But I know wherewith I speak concerning those whom I know, and it bugs me to see them getting away with it.

I want to help you see through the Gores and the Kennedys and the Kerrys. Understand that these are people who are so loaded with money that they can afford their yachts, mansions, resorts, SUVs, etc. These people are upper upper class, and they do not wish to have the same standard of living as those who are worth "mere" hundreds of thousands. They know how to shield their wealth from estate taxes, and they can even absorb a real tax increase without losing their standard of living. It makes them more elite, though, when they can knock that guy down who has worked for wealth and keep his children from joining their class. It's not so much that they have compassion on that unwed mother trying to put food on her table. Rather, they see the opportunity to channel the envy from the lower class to push down the middle and the lower upper classes. I wish that you could see their motives and reject them.

For the record, I am not a member of the Right (unless you would think Ron Paul a member of the Right). I believe the four worst Presidents in U.S. history have one thing in common - they are still alive!

Sorry for the rant. I appreciate your feedback regarding the theory, and I plan to return to the topic.

Double post, sorry.

Originally Posted by JDW

Zilch already mentioned it, but Jim Crow had nothing to do with the Republicans and everything to do with racist Democrats.

I grew up with Wallace Democrats. Oh, you never said the "n word", but people know whatca mean-

-know what I mean ::

During the '60s and '70s, the Democrat Party pursued the illogical game of appealing both to blacks and institutional racists.

Wallace was the last old style southern Democrat to successfully influence the intraparty race in a major way. It was a classic of political science, the struggle between two wings of a party.

Originally Posted by JDW

True, a significant portion of the southern racists switched to the GOP as a result, but I personally did not observe this happening until the '90s, and only because the Democrats could no longer figure out how to hold on to them and the blacks at the same time.

It sounds like your talking about the Congressional election of 1994.
I saw the Republican victory that year earlier than most. After Clinton failed the pass a healthcare plan, he couldn't afford any bad choices, but he raised the taxes back to a level where the Federal Budget was running at worst a technical surplus by the end of his term. If he had spent most of his influence on it, he could have passed healthcare instead of NAFTA. But he did what the beltway establishment told him to.

On the other hand, many of those racists remained Democrats but have been able to hide their motives. I knew these people in college.

I'm not going to presuppose on your personal experences. But I will say from my own college experence is that none of my friends in college that were Young Democrats, which is a group that I was once a part of, every betrayed any condecension or worse towards others for racial reasons.

They tend to benefit from industries or professions to which liberalism is friendly: litigation, alchohol, entertainment and finance,

Money :

I understand that it is unfair to accuse all white liberals as having hidden racist motives, just as it is unfair to paint Republicans with that brush.

I want to help you see through the Gores and the Kennedys and the Kerrys. Understand that these are people who are so loaded with money that they can afford their yachts, mansions, resorts, SUVs, etc. These people are upper upper class, and they do not wish to have the same standard of living as those who are worth "mere" hundreds of thousands.

And the richest Republicans do ?

Sorry for the rant. I appreciate your feedback regarding the theory, and I plan to return to the topic.

It's all right. We need to be able to discuss the way we interpert our expernces in light of history as we understand it. If I looked at history in a linear fashon, I would feel hopelessness. When I was 7, in 1969 friendly middle aged clean and competent GI's ran things in my hometown. It was a formerly all rural town that was becoming suburbanized. Equally clean, but younger and somehow "cooler" silents were the classic "helper generation"- the best young adult archtyope for that role, such are things that 1T/ recovery eras are made of.

We've gone from that to this.
I'm as ready as I can be, my personal debt level is good and improving, and I'm doing other things like growing many oif my own vegitables organically in my garden. I may someday choose to leave rural America again for the convienince of a city. If I do, the ability to take part in a community garden is going to be manditory. I won't move anywhere it isn't being done.
But to finish up, George Wallace started out as a populist. He ran for governor as a racial moderate and lost to the "race" candidate. He vowed that he'd never be "out segged" again and he wasn't until he returned to his populist roots and served his last and best term as governor from 1983-87. He would have been easily re-elected, and would have carried both the black and the white vote, but his health went into futher decline as his term progressed.
The Wallace Democrats played a role in history not unlike the Gorbachev era at the end of the Sovuiet Union. A one party systen that had run a region for a century knew that it was losing power and that the weight of history was going to make it lose power, but they held on for as long as they could from a declining position.

And some of them, perhaps many of them, are going to vote for Obama this November for reasons having nothing to do with race.

Originally Posted by JDW

Zilch already mentioned it,

Usually a warning sign of forthcoming spin!

but Jim Crow had nothing to do with the Republicans and everything to do with racist Democrats.

Dictatorial systems ordinarily need but one political party. After the Civil War, the Republican Party in the South represented people other than the old agrarian elite -- freedmen, of course, but also "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags". In essence, the Republican Party was the opposition that the old planter elite had no use or tolerance for. As soon as the planter class could regain control, it slammed the door on political life to any other than those that it most trusted. It relegated the party of Lincoln to irrelevance and held complete control of the Democratic Party.

I really feel that blacks have been sold a bill of goods on that one. The DNC has been very effective at revising history.

Beginning in 1965, blacks forced their way into the Democratic Party, then the only political game in town, in the South. Because the Republican Party was a choice only for the Presidency, the contest for such a local office as Sheriff or such a statewide office as Governor would be decided in the primary election and not the general election. A one-party system can be democratic if it allows (even by default) participation by everyone and democracy within the party. It wasn't long before Southern reactionaries found that they could run as Republicans against the Party that was no longer was theirs -- if they could pretend that the fearsome image of Abraham Lincoln had no further significance.

Between Reconstruction and the Civil Rights movement, one huge shift happened in the black vote where it counted: it went from Republican to Democratic as blacks of the GI Generation found the New Deal a good program. That was, of course, up North and out West, where blacks could vote.

Revising history? Note well that in 2004, the States that had largely voted for William Jennings Bryan (D) in 1904 voted for George Worthless Bush (R), and those that voted for Theodore Roosevelt (R) in 1904 largely voted for John Kerry (D). Over about 100 years, Party affiliation has largely flip-flopped in America, with the corporatist, racist, and superstitious interests going from the Democratic Party and the populist, tolerant, and rational interests going to the Democratic Party. Go figure.

During the '60s and '70s, the Democrat Party pursued the illogical game of appealing both to blacks and institutional racists. The racists had the political connections, while the blacks (to put it bluntly) were given a quart of liquor, a bus ride and instructions on how to vote a straight Democrat ticket.

The action was of course in the primary elections. Blacks typically voted against segregationist politicians in the primary, and they did that, I believe, without any need for a quart of liquor. Blacks knew who the bigots were and could recognize the code words for racism.

As blacks became better educated and more politically aware, the DNC had to change strategy. They accomplished this by ignoring the true history of Civil Rights and portraying the GOP as the racists. True, a significant portion of the southern racists switched to the GOP as a result, but I personally did not observe this happening until the '90s, and only because the Democrats could no longer figure out how to hold on to them and the blacks at the same time.

Not quite. Northern Republicans may have been trending conservative, but even many of the conservatives had no use for racists. Racism isn't compatible with unfettered free enterprise. Northern Republicans associated with giant manufacturers had no stake in the peonage of people who could never buy the washing machines, TVs, and cars that people in utter destitution can't buy.

On the other hand, many of those racists remained Democrats but have been able to hide their motives. I knew these people in college. They belonged to white fraternities, were very condescending toward blacks and black fraternities, and today are very still loyal Democrats.

And when they need blacks, they sing a different tune that serves their interests. Any surprise?

They tend to benefit from industries or professions to which liberalism is friendly: litigation, alcohol, entertainment and finance, to name a few. They are still politically connected, and I can't see where they would have any interest in helping blacks to break the cycle.

Why would power, including political power, not seek political connections?

I understand that it is unfair to accuse all white liberals as having hidden racist motives, just as it is unfair to paint Republicans with that brush. But I know wherewith I speak concerning those whom I know, and it bugs me to see them getting away with it.

Note well: black people in the South know white people in the South better than white people know themselves. It's called overexposure.

I want to help you see through the Gores and the Kennedys and the Kerrys. Understand that these are people who are so loaded with money that they can afford their yachts, mansions, resorts, SUVs, etc. These people are upper upper class, and they do not wish to have the same standard of living as those who are worth "mere" hundreds of thousands.

No, the distinction is not between little money and big money -- it's between Old Money and New Money. It's a huge difference in tastes and attitudes. A family whose members have never known struggles to make a business survive has very different values than those who recently knew such struggles.

They know how to shield their wealth from estate taxes, and they can even absorb a real tax increase without losing their standard of living. It makes them more elite, though, when they can knock that guy down who has worked for wealth and keep his children from joining their class.

The secret is that the Old Rich distrust the nouveaux-riches, who tend to be brash and showy. That has been true for at least two centuries in America.

It's not so much that they have compassion on that unwed mother trying to put food on her table. Rather, they see the opportunity to channel the envy from the lower class to push down the middle and the lower upper classes. I wish that you could see their motives and reject them.

I do not trust the rich -- any kind -- to look out for any other than themselves. I think of the nouveau-riche executive class as a new nomenklatura in American life, one that has channeled American politics to ensure that it experiences lower taxes and that nothing gets in the way of its bureaucratic power. The New Class (reference to Milan Djilas about Tito's Yugoslavia) is as exploitative as traditional aristocracies and capitalists. It has sought to reward toil with debt instead of wages while destroying competition among capitalists -- but ensuring that for all but themselves and those who hire them that life is a vicious dog-eat-dog struggle.

For the record, I am not a member of the Right (unless you would think Ron Paul a member of the Right). I believe the four worst Presidents in U.S. history have one thing in common - they are still alive!

Sorry for the rant. I appreciate your feedback regarding the theory, and I plan to return to the topic.

All living Presidents includes Jimmy Carter (caught in a bind as a 2T politician as America went 3T). George H. W. Bush, who will likely be remembered only for the fall of Communism, overthrowing Manuel Noriega, and driving Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Bill Clinton at the least presided over the biggest budget surpluses in American history and otherwise accomplished little. It's impossible to accomplish much late in a 3T. Such is a 3T, when everybody thinks that "everyone for himself" is the definitive expression of the public interest.

Nobody in that group quite compares to Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S. Grant, Warren G. Harding, or Calvin Coolidge. Dubya, of course, does. Cruel, corrupt, incompetent, elitist, dictatorial, reckless...

Originally Posted by herbal tee

I grew up with Wallace Democrats. Oh, you never said the "n word", but people know whatca mean-

-know what I mean ::

Is this what pbrower2a meant about blacks knowing whites better than we know ourselves?

1) I never use the n-word. Even if it were not publicly taboo, I have more respect than that and never appreciated the lack thereof.

2) As I was referring to the perpetrators, and not the victims, it was unnecessary for me to mention black people.

Then again, maybe I didn't know whatch meant. At least, I hope not.

Originally Posted by JDW

Is this what pbrower2a meant about blacks knowing whites better than we know ourselves?

1) I never use the n-word. Even if it were not publicly taboo, I have more respect than that and never appreciated the lack thereof.

2) As I was referring to the perpetrators, and not the victims, it was unnecessary for me to mention black people.

Then again, maybe I didn't know whatch meant. At least, I hope not.

It probably comes from white people, especially in the South, grossly underestimating the intellectual prowess of black people. For years, white people rarely had to figure out what black people thought -- but black people had no choice except to figure out when a white person showing feigned friendship or politeness was likely to betray the friendship or politeness. That was part of the culture, and that cultural trait dies slowly.

Then again, the family dog probably knows things about you, like your body language, that you don't even think about.

Originally Posted by JDW

Is this what pbrower2a meant about blacks knowing whites better than we know ourselves?

1) I never use the n-word. Even if it were not publicly taboo, I have more respect than that and never appreciated the lack thereof.

2) As I was referring to the perpetrators, and not the victims, it was unnecessary for me to mention black people.

Then again, maybe I didn't know whatch meant. At least, I hope not.

Have you not said before that you grew up in the south?
Either I'm mistaken about the region of your orgin or else you've had a childhood totally incompatiable with what anyone else I know from around here that's anywhere near my age knows about.
The whole Wallace thing was about code words. Most people I know didn't use the 'n' word either. Nevertheless, the backing of Thurmond and Maddox et. al. before him and the switch to the GOP afterward was about keeping a cultural seperation between the races. To be specific, during the seventies, most southern whites opposed forced busing, but differed on the approach to take. My family and most of the people that I knew personally believed that the law had to be followed, and the law supported integration. The other position was one of more or less total resistance. It was in many ways a painful transition period for many, but one that I'm glad to have gone through for I can see in the easier manner in which race relations often take place now. This would not have happened and the south would really be a different and backward region today without this time of pain. As to today's southern Democrats being to blame for racial tensions, pain has also cleansed them for they were purified by the strongest cleanser in politics, a loss of power. When the Democrats of the south adhered to the national outlook and the total resistance group went over to the Republicans, the numbers were generally enough to change the governing party throughout the region. And that's where the matter stands today.To grow up around here and to pretend ignorance on these matters does not help your creditability at all.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

To grow up around here and to pretend ignorance on these matters does not help your creditability at all.

No, I simply didn't know what you meant. Sounded like you were accusing me of implied racism.

Originally Posted by JDW

No, I simply didn't know what you meant. Sounded like you were accusing me of implied racism.

Oh no, that wasn't what I meant. I was kind of in a flip mood when I started my reply. I tried to show the same with the winking emotcon :: , but I can see how that could have been misintrepeted too, sorry.

As to the topic itself, I believe as I've written about elsewhere on the forum, that the 80 year cycle is likely a wheel within other wheels. By all means elaborate futher on the subject when your ready.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Oh no, that wasn't what I meant. I was kind of in a flip mood when I started my reply. I tried to show the same with the winking emotcon :: , but I can see how that could have been misintrepeted too, sorry.

As to the topic itself, I believe as I've written about elsewhere on the forum, that the 80 year cycle is likely a wheel within other wheels. By all means elaborate futher on the subject when your ready.

Yeah, thanks for sending me down a rabbit trail, herby. Apology accepted.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It probably comes from white people, especially in the South, grossly underestimating the intellectual prowess of black people. For years, white people rarely had to figure out what black people thought -- but black people had no choice except to figure out when a white person showing feigned friendship or politeness was likely to betray the friendship or politeness. That was part of the culture, and that cultural trait dies slowly.
Then again, the family dog probably knows things about you, like your body language, that you don't even think about.

I understand what you are saying. Yet there is an element of paranoia there that unfairly accuses well-meaning people. My observation is that most everyone is unintentionally inconsiderate at one time or another. If it's someone like us, we chalk it up to insensitivity. If it's somebody different, we attribute it to some darker motive.

I had an experience at a grocery store not long ago where I had a single item that I needed to check out. There was a black couple headed to the cash register at the same time I was. (It was a tie.) Because their shopping cart was full, I asked them if I could go ahead. They allowed me to, but after seeing the looks on their faces, I wished I had let them go first. To me it was expediency, but to them it was a racial insult. I sincerely hope that they are not hearing things in church which reinforce that.

I have learned to pay attention to how my actions might be interpreted by blacks. It causes me to go the extra mile sometimes, and at other times it puts me on pins and needles. Just as I would encourage whites to show friendship to blacks at every opportunity, I challenge blacks to get over their own prejudice and recognize when we are trying.

[BTW, if anyone noticed my faux pas yesterday, I’ll own up to it. If you think you know, how about sending me a private message.]

Originally Posted by herbal tee

As to the topic itself, I believe as I've written about elsewhere on the forum, that the 80 year cycle is likely a wheel within other wheels. By all means elaborate futher on the subject when your ready.

Wheel within wheels. Very good...

It appears to me that there are actually three subsets of paradigms, although the S&H theory only captured two, missing the Moral/Doctrinal component. The other two sets are Open/Closed Society and Change/Continue. Using the S&H model:

1T – Continue Closed Society
2T – Change to Open Society
3T – Continue Open Society
4T – Change to Closed Society

It is inferred from this that Artists and Prophets prefer Open Society, while Nomads and Heroes prefer Closed Society, which may be true enough. It is interesting, though, how S&H described the influence of Ronald Reagan. Reagan, they suggested, conceded to the Open Society in order to conclude the Awakening on his own terms. From a Generations standpoint, it brought up an interesting question – was Reagan behaving as a GI, a Silent or a Boomer? If he was behaving as a GI, then how did he position himself to have an influence beyond the Awakening? Would that not make him a “virtual Boomer,” very different from Jimmy Carter, who was a “virtual Silent”? And whatever Reagan was, wouldn’t George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole have to be the same thing? Where do three old Heroes fit into a 3T?

Let’s look at that the same recent 4 Turnings using the APT model:

1T – Continue Closed, Doctrine-Driven Society
2T – Change to Open, Moral-Driven Society
3T – Continue Open, Moral-Driven Society
4T – Change to Closed, Moral-Driven Society

Let’s put a book mark right there.

Perhaps someone can explain to me how to draw a chart within a post. What I would like to draw would show “Doctrine” at the bottom and “Moral” at the top, although it could be shown as the reverse. During a Doctrinal High (e.g., 1946-1964) we would show a relatively flat line at the bottom. During the Boom Awakening, the line would slope upward until it flattened out toward the middle, which would be the recent Unraveling. The line would then slope upward again as we entered the current Crisis.

Following the Crisis, it would plateau for the Moral High, drop during the Doctrinal Awakening, flatten out toward the middle, etc., etc.

Going back to the discussion of Moral versus Doctrinal, it is understood that both paradigms exist, although at times one of them goes dormant. We can think of one as the ruling paradigm, while the other is the shadow paradigm.” [Nomads tend to prefer the shadow paradigm, although it should be noted that some Prophets do, too. (Strauss and Howe, for example)]

Hopefully, I haven’t lost everybody trying to follow this discussion. What I am suggesting, though, is that a 3T occurs when an Open Society catches its breath after the introduction of a new paradigm. The old paradigm, becoming the shadow paradigm, is able to check the progress of the new, ruling paradigm. As a rule, I would assume that the new paradigm does not completely lose momentum, but the change becomes much more gradual. Reagan, however, stopped the momentum of the new paradigm dead in its tracks. (Only with the war has it picked up where it left off.)

My take on all this is that Reagan actually behaved as a “virtual Missionary,” as though he were introducing the Doctrinal Paradigm for the first time! That is, he didn’t give in to the Boomer paradigm; he went on the offensive against it. By doing so, he gave an extra phase of political life to a generation which had been on the defensive. Thus even during an Unraveling, GIs were able to follow through on such doctrinal goals as the end of the Cold War and a functional UN during the Gulf War.

Originally Posted by JDW

Wheel within wheels. Very good...

It appears to me that there are actually three subsets of paradigms, although the S&H theory only captured two, missing the Moral/Doctrinal component. The other two sets are Open/Closed Society and Change/Continue. Using the S&H model:

1T – Continue Closed Society
2T – Change to Open Society
3T – Continue Open Society
4T – Change to Closed Society

It is inferred from this that Artists and Prophets prefer Open Society, while Nomads and Heroes prefer Closed Society, which may be true enough. It is interesting, though, how S&H described the influence of Ronald Reagan. Reagan, they suggested, conceded to the Open Society in order to conclude the Awakening on his own terms. From a Generations standpoint, it brought up an interesting question – was Reagan behaving as a GI, a Silent or a Boomer? If he was behaving as a GI, then how did he position himself to have an influence beyond the Awakening? Would that not make him a “virtual Boomer,” very different from Jimmy Carter, who was a “virtual Silent”? And whatever Reagan was, wouldn’t George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole have to be the same thing? Where do three old Heroes fit into a 3T?

One way of looking at it was to look at Jimmy Carter and George Herbert Walker Bush as members of the Silent Generation, assigning the cohort that includes those born in 1924 with Carter and George H W Bush (20 or 21 at the end of the World War II Crisis) to the cohorts born in 1925 and 1926 -- old enough to participate in World War II yet unable to achieve leadership roles during the Crisis. Both tried to play the bridge role between the Hero/Civic (GI) and Prophet/Idealist (Boom) generations like typical Artist/Adaptive politician -- and did it badly. Late-wave participants in a war (McKinley, Andrew Jackson) can't become full Hero/Civic types, and if they try to play the Hero/Civic role they bungle it. Jackson tried some other role and succeeded; McKinley tried to do what Carter and George H W Bush tried -- and by most accounts was an ineffective President).

Being defeated in a landslide despite a desire to be re-elected ordinarily indicates a Presidency of poor (Carter) or at best mixed results (George H W Bush) as understood at the time. Ronald Reagan as an anomalously-old (at the time) middle-cohort Civic suggests that America wasn't quite ready for Silent-like leadership in 1980 and wanted an honest-to-God GI as President. Would Bob Dole have been a reversion to GI practice? Had he won and been successful we might have good cause to establish 1923/1924 as the GI/Silent divide. But any discussion of a Dole Presidency goes to the "Alternative History" genre.

Ronald Reagan may have been one of the least cerebral of recent Presidents, having graduated from a diploma mill and having shown a contempt for "egghead" Boomers found a way in which to bridge the generation gap that remained in existence through the 2T: appeal to the more right-wing Boomers who had been left out of the 2T Awakening while preserving the entitlements that the GI Generation had established for themselves. Old-age benefits for elders who had earned them were compatible with conservatism as welfare and cheap education hadn't been earned by the Thirteenth Generation who would get hit as proxies for the Boomer Left. Reagan created the political coalition that would prevail even with the disappearance of the GI Generation except in the first two years of the Clinton Administration -- until that coalition discredited itself under George Worthless Bush. Dominant coalitions eventually collect questionable hangers-on who in the end make that coalition an easy target for radical reformers, if not revolutionaries. That created a 3T, a time in which the ethos "I've got mine -- you earn yours" eventually decayed to "I've got mine -- screw you!"

Let’s look at that the same recent 4 Turnings using the APT model:

1T – Continue Closed, Doctrine-Driven Society
2T – Change to Open, Moral-Driven Society
3T – Continue Open, Moral-Driven Society
4T – Change to Closed, Moral-Driven Society

Let’s put a book mark right there.

I disagree with the idea that a 3T is a morally-driven society; it is a time of political and moral decay. Cultural life might be daring and fun, but that's about all that people ever appreciate about a 3T afterwards (F. Scott Fitzgerald, George Gershwin, Charlie Chaplin in the 1920s). Organization largely fades except among the military and Big Business. There's much moral posturing, but that posturing is ineffective except as a hustle that separates fools from their money. The Religious Right, like the Prohibition cause, try to establish a new and eternal order, but the Reactive generation not part of the crusade finds the means of circumventing those crusades. Religious hucksters wax rich while getting mostly symbolic victories. Meanwhile the economic consensus leads to a fashion of deregulation that coincides with the rise of economic elites, the only people who remain able to dictate economic results are the plutocrats and their bureaucratic underlings. Because of the decay of organization among others, the well-organized plutocrats and bureaucratic underlings are able to impose upon society the sorts of leaders (Fillmore, Pierce, Harding, Coolidge, and "43") who prove themselves as "team players". Someone who tries to buck the trend (such as Bill Clinton) tends to find himself at odds and gets a political drubbing.

In any event, we are likely to see how 3T life comes to its end in the details other than ignonomity. A 3T comes to an end in a 4T, the hurricane that shows the folly of an All-for-the-Few economy, debt-driven speculation as a surrogate for an honest day's pay for an honest day's work, and consumerism as a proxy for economic growth. I can think of people getting burned not only in a real estate crash but also in the collapse of the oil bubble. A 4T forces people to create tangible wealth through sacrifice and commitment, meager profits to be had only by meeting the hard standards of a merciless market.

Following the Crisis, it would plateau for the Moral High, drop during the Doctrinal Awakening, flatten out toward the middle, etc., etc.

A 4T can be either a time of great moral leadership (Lincoln) or of the greatest possible amorality (Hitler). In a 4T an Idealist leader must make the moral standards of the time seem pragmatic to the Reactive generation that then far larger in numbers and then in control of industry, armies, and navies -- or the the Nomad/Reactive leadership must establish its necessity for social discipline. The 3T effort to impose morality by person-by-person hectoring and posturing no longer works, in part because the Idealist generation is itself rapidly declining in sheer numbers and in part because Nomad/Reactive and Hero/Civic generations despise such. Should 4T leadership prove extremely amoral, that leadership makes its own defeat certain. The worst sort of wartime leadership seeks to avenge personal slights -- and vengeance in the end not only destroys innocent people but also makes a more moral enemy more attractive as liberators. I am convinced that with leadership less amoral -- the sort that would have treated Jews and Slavs decently because of shared humanity -- Germany would have won a 4T war with the Soviet Union had such a war started. I am also convinced that had America and Japan had inverted roles of decency and thuggery, then Japan would have beaten America badly, perhaps with terms of surrender dictated in (occupied? liberated?) Kansas City, Missouri instead of on the Battleship Missouri.

What I am suggesting, though, is that a 3T occurs when an Open Society catches its breath after the introduction of a new paradigm. The old paradigm, becoming the shadow paradigm, is able to check the progress of the new, ruling paradigm. As a rule, I would assume that the new paradigm does not completely lose momentum, but the change becomes much more gradual. Reagan, however, stopped the momentum of the new paradigm dead in its tracks. (Only with the war has it picked up where it left off.)

I think that the 4T/1T cusp establishes a closed society with frozen standards of culture, morals, and political life (note that those values can be enforced from elsewhere, as in Germany after World War II -- either Germany!), and the 1T implies the preservation of a closed society with a slow erosion of support for it as Artist/Adaptives chafe under it. In a 2T, Prophet/Idealist rising adults who are able to recognize the seams of the 1T world but had no role in its imposition begin to recognize the faults of the society -- and Artist adults finally break loose from the cultural shackles. The 2T/3T cusp is the maximum of openness of society because the new generation of Nomad/Reactive adults entering the scene have no stake in rebelling against a society that allows almost anything to go but then other adults (including the still-present Hero/Civics) recognize that things are going too far.

The 3T/4T cusp demonstrates that the folly of a society in which "anything goes, but the devil take the hindmost" no longer is sustainable. Starvation and ruin aren't freedom, and 4T leadership of any kind recognizes or exploits that fact. Amoral rebellion (typically overt criminality) is crushed harshly in a 4T (Capone and many Wall Street cheats going to prison in the early 1930s; such types as Bonnie and Clyde, John Dillinger, and Pretty Boy Floyd being gunned down by law enforcement; Bruno Hauptmann and Lepke Buchalter going to the electric chair for crimes deemed monstrously evil) if the system is good; if the system is bad, as in the Third Reich, then dissidents that the regime deems even worse criminals than rapists and murderers go to concentration camps, torture chambers, or the morgue.

My take on all this is that Reagan actually behaved as a “virtual Missionary,” as though he were introducing the Doctrinal Paradigm for the first time! That is, he didn’t give in to the Boomer paradigm; he went on the offensive against it. By doing so, he gave an extra phase of political life to a generation which had been on the defensive. Thus even during an Unraveling, GIs were able to follow through on such doctrinal goals as the end of the Cold War and a functional UN during the Gulf War.

No, I think that Reagan found that he could adapt Boomer paradigms other than the loud ones of the (then) recent past -- that of the Religious Right, the anti-feminists, and of Boomers who had decided that feathering their own economic nests was more important than challenging a GI-built society. Reagan may have been no genius, but he knew what he was doing when he built the 3T coalition that seems to have lasted until 2006.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

One way of looking at it was to look at Jimmy Carter and George Herbert Walker Bush as members of the Silent Generation, assigning the cohort that includes those born in 1924 with Carter and George H W Bush (20 or 21 at the end of the World War II Crisis) to the cohorts born in 1925 and 1926 -- old enough to participate in World War II yet unable to achieve leadership roles during the Crisis. Both tried to play the bridge role between the Hero/Civic (GI) and Prophet/Idealist (Boom) generations like typical Artist/Adaptive politician -- and did it badly.

I have to disagree with having the cutoff be 1923/1924. Generally, anywherre between 1924 and 1926 is cusp territory for GI and Silent. The point is not to be a leader during the Crisis, but to be a foot soldier, and have the crucible of the crisis be a coming of age empowering event. For George HW Bush, WWII filled that role; he performed heroically as a pilot. Carter never had the chance to see combat; he was being trained by the Navy. On the other hand, there were plenty of folks born in 1925 and 1926 who actually saw combat.

I see George HW Bush as much more of a GI; go with the Establishment, stiff upper lip, etc... He doesn't strike me as an empathetic healing Silent type. Carter, on the other hand, with his 1976 slogan "Why Not the Best?", his confession of having "lust in his heart", and his life long obsession with bringing Arab and Israeli together to find peace in the Middle East, shows all the marks of an early wave Silent.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I have to disagree with having the cutoff be 1923/1924. Generally, anywhere between 1924 and 1926 is cusp territory for GI and Silent. The point is not to be a leader during the Crisis, but to be a foot soldier, and have the crucible of the crisis be a coming of age empowering event. For George HW Bush, WWII filled that role; he performed heroically as a pilot. Carter never had the chance to see combat; he was being trained by the Navy. On the other hand, there were plenty of folks born in 1925 and 1926 who actually saw combat.

I see George HW Bush as much more of a GI; go with the Establishment, stiff upper lip, etc... He doesn't strike me as an empathetic healing Silent type. Carter, on the other hand, with his 1976 slogan "Why Not the Best?", his confession of having "lust in his heart", and his life long obsession with bringing Arab and Israeli together to find peace in the Middle East, shows all the marks of an early wave Silent.

I certainly agree with this, and it raises another issue you mention: generational cusps. I know the authors had no love of the concept, but the evidence for cusps seems pretty strong to me.

Generations may be impacted collectively by events that create defined boundaries, but the individuals that make-up that collective are impacted by a wide range of events, many that are only shared within their families or communities. Sometimes that creates a broad cusp, like the Generation Jones sub-gen, and other times the cusp is smaller, though I suspect that one always exists in some form and dimension.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I certainly agree with this, and it raises another issue you mention: generational cusps. I know the authors had no love of the concept, but the evidence for cusps seems pretty strong to me.

Generations may be impacted collectively by events that create defined boundaries, but the individuals that make-up that collective are impacted by a wide range of events, many that are only shared within their families or other similar settings. Sometimes that creates a broad cusp, like the Generation Jones sun-gen, and other times the cusp is smaller, though I suspect that one always exists in some form and dimension.

I recall a discussion with Neil Howe about Carter. He acknowledged Carter's Silent-like characteristics. I do believe that S&H acknowledged cusps. I think their opinion is/was that while individuals on either side of the cusp can be more like the archetype on the other side of the cusp, when you look at the broad picture, you need to draw the generational line somewhere. In other words, cusps are more pertinent to individuals than to large populations.

I realize that my use of the terms morally-driven and doctrinally-driven can be a little confusing. “Moral” to most people implies the Christian Right, but I mean it in a more general sense. Perhaps if I substitute the terms emotionally-driven and intellectually-driven it will be less confusion, although it may (or may not) lose some of its meaning. I also only addressed the last four turnings, as opposed to the complete cycle of eight. This may have been confusing as well. Let’s try again:

1T
Moral High (Reconstruction/Gilded Age) – Continue Closed, Emotionally Driven Society

2T
Doctrinal Awakening (Missionary Age) – Change to Open, Intellectually Driven Society

3T
Moral Unraveling (WWI/Roaring ‘20s) – Continue Open, Emotionally Driven Society

4T
Doctrinal Crisis (Depression/WWII) – Change to Closed, Intellectually Driven Society

1T
Doctrinal High (Baby Boom) – Continue Closed, Intellectually Driven Society

2T
Moral Awakening (Viet Nam/”Stagflation”) - Change to Open, Emotionally Driven Society
Shadow Doctrinal Awakening (Reaganomics) - Change to Open, Intellectually Driven Society

Shadow 3T
Doctrinal “Swan Song” (End of Cold War/”New World Order”) - Continue Open, Intellectually Driven Society

3T
Doctrinal Unraveling (Clinton Era) - Continue Open, Emotionally Driven Society

4T
Moral Crisis (Post-9/11) – Change to Closed, Emotionally Driven Society

Now, let’s list the presidents that span my lifetime:

Kennedy – Doctrinal Left
Johnson - Doctrinal Left
Nixon – Doctrinal Center
Ford - Doctrinal Center
Carter – Doctrinal Left/Moral Center
Reagan – Doctrinal Right
“Poppy” Bush – Doctrinal Center
Clinton – Moral Left
“W” Bush – Moral Right

We can, of course, debate the list. The main thing I want to point out is that 1992 was a very interesting election in light of the available choices.

George H. W. Bush (Doctrinal Center) had showcased GI achievement by overseeing the fall of the Soviet Union and orchestrating a successful UN operation in Kuwait (never mind Panama being a go-it-alone). However, his apparent insensitivity in pushing NAFTA during a painful recession, along with his flippant “Read my hips,” undermined any appetite for a second Bush term. Bill Clinton (Moral Left), on the other hand, struck a chord with his “I feel your pain” speech. The choice in this case, then, was not Right versus Left, but Thinking versus Feeling.

For those who longed for a return to Reagan, the only choice was the enigmatic Ross Perot (Doctrinal Right/Moral Center). The Moral Right ended up throwing its lot in with Bush, and the conservative vote was effectively split. Through Clinton, the Left reestablished the Emotional Paradigm. Clinton, himself, then became the moral issue that brought the Right on board with it. The unraveling of the Doctrinal Paradigm effectively began.

For what it's worth, I've decided on the term "echo-Missionary" to describe Reagan.

Originally Posted by JDW

Hopefully, I haven’t lost everybody trying to follow this discussion. What I am suggesting, though, is that a 3T occurs when an Open Society catches its breath after the introduction of a new paradigm. The old paradigm, becoming the shadow paradigm, is able to check the progress of the new, ruling paradigm. As a rule, I would assume that the new paradigm does not completely lose momentum, but the change becomes much more gradual. Reagan, however, stopped the momentum of the new paradigm dead in its tracks. (Only with the war has it picked up where it left off.)

My take on all this is that Reagan actually behaved as a “virtual Missionary,” as though he were introducing the Doctrinal Paradigm for the first time! That is, he didn’t give in to the Boomer paradigm; he went on the offensive against it. By doing so, he gave an extra phase of political life to a generation which had been on the defensive. Thus even during an Unraveling, GIs were able to follow through on such doctrinal goals as the end of the Cold War and a functional UN during the Gulf War.

Interesting take on Reagan! So the Xers would of helped with the counteroffensive of the doctrinal paradigm against the Moral Boomers and Silents, correct? That makes sense. It would also explain the political behavior of Xers, especially older Xers, in the 3T.

Originally Posted by Odin

Interesting take on Reagan! So the Xers would of helped with the counteroffensive of the doctrinal paradigm against the Moral Boomers and Silents, correct? That makes sense. It would also explain the political behavior of Xers, especially older Xers, in the 3T.

I'm trying to see if I can have it made into a movie: Generation Wars - The Return of the GI."

Originally Posted by Odin

So the Xers would of helped with the counteroffensive of the doctrinal paradigm against the Moral Boomers and Silents, correct?

I think so. Xers would not "own" the paradigm the way a Prophet or Hero would. However, I think there is something anomalous about Xers in that we have had more experience with the "old paradigm" than most Nomads. In fact, I believe this saeculum to be anomalous in many ways. IMHO:

1) The Awakening came too soon. Boomers were not reared to have the traditional respect for elders, which delayed earlier Prophets from making their mark on society until earlier Heroes were fully in elderhood,

2) Which means that the GIs were still young enough to strike back,

3) Which means that Silents were squeeze out as visible leaders,

4) And Xers were able to participate in the paradigm counter-offensive,

5) Which means that the old paradigm has been slow to die,

6) Which means that unlike the Civil War (which heated up too fast) the current paradigm has heated up too slowly.

7) What all this means for Millennials has yet to be determined.