Originally Posted by JDW

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,

Oh, is that true! The Boom Awakening came while the young adults were still of the Silent Generation, and Boomers were still mostly kids.

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

Indeed; the youngest GIs were still in their early 40s, which means that they were not yet as rigid as 60-something Civics. GIs were NOT brass targets for youth as were Republicans around 1820.

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

Actually, they were visible leaders, but they had a very short window of opportunity. RFK was assassinated in 1968, and he had plenty of opportunities had he lived. In 1984 and 1988, the two Silent nominees for President (Mondale, Dukakis) were absolutely crushed as their campaigns faltered.

John McCain might have been a valid candidate in 2000 --- but in 2008 he is clearly past prime.

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

Generation X was essential to the cultural counter-revolution, the ones who accepted a right-wing GI agenda (Reagan, Bush I) and the Boom Right agenda that GIs had fostered through such groups as Young Americans For Freedom (the current President). Between 1981 and now we have had nearly 22 years of political reaction (if you count the Reagan, both Bush Presidencies and the GOP dominance in the House and Senate between 1994 and 2000). The GI Right found the raw red meat with a materialist, hedonist view of the world.

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

Which paradigm?

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

Which means that we had only a few successful reforms. Mercifully those were the most essential -- ethnic and gender equity, environmentalism, and rights for the handicapped. But it is arguable that labor-management relations in America are essentially at the same position as they were in the 1920s, and the social safety net is very typical of Europe going into the previous Crisis Era. Add to this -- we have an economy typical of a fascist dictatorship. We have entrenched interests who would gladly sell out democracy if it meant special prosperity for themselves (the military-industrial complex).

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

Nobody can reasonably predict the results of a 4T until events have decided the 4T. It could be a glorious time for America as the advent of a new and much-better world -- or it could end with a shameful, self-inflicted debacle.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Which paradigm?

Of course, I speak of the doctrinal paradigm, which GIs finally relinquished in 1992 (which in most saecula would be a more natural beginning for an unraveling). One would expect the unraveling to continue for as long as the Silent have an influence (as they traditionally would be the final brokers for preserving the doctrinal paradigm). However, as Boomers and Xers (perhaps Jonesers, in particular) have become "infected" with the old paradigm, the dual-paradigm paradigm may continue a bit longer, making paradigm closure (a 4T phenomenon) evasive.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Which means that we had only a few successful reforms. Mercifully those were the most essential -- ethnic and gender equity, environmentalism, and rights for the handicapped. But it is arguable that labor-management relations in America are essentially at the same position as they were in the 1920s, and the social safety net is very typical of Europe going into the previous Crisis Era. Add to this -- we have an economy typical of a fascist dictatorship. We have entrenched interests who would gladly sell out democracy if it meant special prosperity for themselves (the military-industrial complex).

Another aspect of this is that Boomers were not mature enough at the beginning of the awakening to avoid the excesses that made the backlash necessary. Imagine, for example, that Viet Nam had been a failure, but without the peace movement. An awakening springing up in the wake of that might have had greater staying power.

Originally Posted by JDW

Another aspect of this is that Boomers were not mature enough at the beginning of the awakening to avoid the excesses that made the backlash necessary. Imagine, for example, that Viet Nam had been a failure, but without the peace movement. An awakening springing up in the wake of that might have had greater staying power.

I think that late-wave Boomers were more cautious in politics and culture than were early-wave Boomers. GIs could have been more rigid on educational practice, rejecting the "anything-goes" University in favor of the standard liberal-arts emphasis which, I believe, better prepared youth for roles of leadership. I look at early-wave Boomers and I see people who put too many concepts into excessively-simple phrases such as "Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Western Civ. has got to go!" and "Hey! Hey! LBJ! How many boys did you kill today!" Let's remember that such people as Bertrand Russell and even Herbert Marcuse were much a part of the heritage of Western Civilization, and that any rootless radicalism is pure destruction. Even if there are things to be learned from non-western civilizations (India, China, and Japan most notably), those civilizations have their own entrenched traditions. China was a very poor model at the time because of its own Cultural Revolution.

Early-wave Boomers had no patience and demonized the flawed. They failed to recognize that they could themselves become the "Pigs"... and look what we now have as President and who his most fervent supporters used to be.

It is a good thing that GIs yielded on the Civil Rights struggle. They should have held firm on educational practice so that people who actually got a college degree got what one ordinarily expected of someone who attended a good four-year institution: someone capable of communicating, someone with a recognition of historical precedent, someone able to recognize a logical argument as valid on the basis of underlying structure instead of gut feelings or self-interest, and someone who recognizes that there's more to life than material gain and indulgence. People who have only material gain and indulgence as the purpose in life, who can measure truth only in self-interest rather than forcing truth to transcend self-interest, whose view of the world comes from the popular culture of their choosing are swine; the expression "pearls before swine" describes how they treat the legitimate achievements of Western Civilization at its best.

Here's the sublime irony: someone like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., could make his assaults on the baseness and vileness of racism only because he could contrast the vileness of institutional racism to the best tendencies in the civilization that he never rejected, to logical constructions in use since the Golden Age of Greece, to moral traditions of the Hebrew prophets, and to the political heritage (sans the hypocrisy of slavery and Jim Crow within a democratic republic) of the political thought of the Enlightenment.

Some day soon we will have to account for the non-achievements of the recent 3T -- and the 3T is over. Aside from some technological innovation that had more to do with talent than anything else, what did we accomplish as a culture? Was the R-rated world so rich as we thought that it would be if dropped the Seventh Veil?

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Indeed, it is merciful that those reforms did occur-I would hate to think what the 4T (which already looks to be harsh) would be like if those were still unfinished business. Thank God these reforms occurred during the Awakening rather than the Crisis.

Perhaps the best of Western Civ will regain respect if we are confronted by non-Western cultures. Do many Westerners sympathize with Muslim fundamentalists?

What do you mean by "many"? Islamic fundamentalism is so antithetical to the hedonistic tendencies within our culture that it must be even more suspect than Communism was.

We are being confronted with cultures not of Western origin -- countries in East, Southeast, and South Asia. I doubt that most Christians have as much antipathy to Buddhism, which is wildly different from Christianity, than they do with Islam. It's the similarities that make the fewer differences between Christianity and Islam the basis of hostility.

Am I disloyal to western civilization if I love Japanese prints and Chinese painting? If I think that Mohandas Gandhi was more admirable than George Worthless Bush? If I admire the technological achievements of ancient Egypt?

I didn't think so.

....

I am glad that the collapse of Communism took place fifteen years ago -- and I wish that those brave seekers of democracy in China had gotten their way instead of being crushed. As I see it, the downfall of Communist Party rule, if not the absurd economic order that is Marxism-Leninism, stands to be a major theater of this 4T, when radical change becomes more dangerous for all concerned. I am glad that we dealt with the political and economic inequality of southern Blacks around the 1T/2T cusp -- the only time in which such would have been possible with comparatively little bloodshed. (Such bloodshed as there was turned the majority of Americans against segregation!). If the Civil Rights struggle had failed (imagine segregationists using tanks against peaceful protesters as the Chinese Communists used against peaceful protesters at Tienanmen Square-- and amoral as they were, all that stopped our segregationists was that they didn't have the tanks), then we would have a copious supply of kerosene-soaked dry timber awaiting a careless match. We Americans would never have done anything to mitigate segregation or disenfranchisement in the recent 3T, an era in which the only politically-successful "reforms" were tax cuts for the super-rich. Institutionalized racism would probably have scared off enough non-white immigration that America would have far fewer of the technological experts and physicians that it now has, and far fewer entrepreneurs. We would be in far worse economic position had we not solved the racial divide to the extent that we did.

I think that labor-management relations are the most likely focus of domestic struggle in a 4T. The American Hard Right thought itself in a great position to impose its own ideal in labor relations -- "We only pretend to pay you, but on occasion we get lenient with the bull whip" -- forever. The United States used to have the sort of economic inequality characteristic of western Europe -- and now that inequality has become more like that in Latin America. Class privilege needs powerful justification to make it acceptable -- or it needs force to mandate compliance.

The fastest-growing occupation in the last twenty years has been "domestic service", a fact that underscores the intensification of economic inequality in America.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

What do you mean by "many"? Islamic fundamentalism is so antithetical to the hedonistic tendencies within our culture that it must be even more suspect than Communism was.

We are being confronted with cultures not of Western origin -- countries in East, Southeast, and South Asia. I doubt that most Christians have as much antipathy to Buddhism, which is wildly different from Christianity, than they do with Islam. It's the similarities that make the fewer differences between Christianity and Islam the basis of hostility.

Maybe Buddhism is more compatible with the legacy of the Enlightenment that all Americans, even Christian conservatives, have in their DNA, than Islamic fundamentalism.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Maybe Buddhism is more compatible with the legacy of the Enlightenment that all Americans, even Christian conservatives, have in their DNA, than Islamic fundamentalism.

Islam had its Enlightenment about a millennium ago. Since then -- I just can't see much.

I think that religious fundamentalism invariably brings disgrace to any religious tradition. The idea that all possible achievements are insignificant in contrast to obedience to some doctrine practically ensures non-achievement among believers. Fundamentalism, I believe, brings out intolerance and insularity -- and the inability to adapt to progress and innovation.

This holds true of Islam, but also of Christianity and Marxism. (Marxism? It poses as the definitive expression of revolution!) Yes -- even Marxism. People who can never let evident truth interfere with their favored doctrines slip behind others. They may define morality as adherence to their favored doctrines... but their doctrine tends to establish that "morality" dictates that those who fail to share those ideals are to be repressed or even killed.

It's hard to imagine Buddhist fundamentalism.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It's hard to imagine Buddhist fundamentalism.

I had to bite.

The feudal Drukpa Buddhist fundamentalism has imposed and prescribed strict adherence to the set of Buddhist dogmas and beliefs among the Bhutanese population. As an aggressive Drukpa conservative movement, it excludes and expels those who do not share its conservative faith or dogmas. Drukpa fundamentalist attitude and traditions reflect the distrusts of reason. Drukpa traditions such as Driglam Namzha is a part of fundamentalism that seeks to restore a Drukpa mythical status quo of Bhutanese society dominated by the Buddhist clerics and old customs. Theocratic ideology of clerics and traditional elements are profound in the administration and pose a challenge to Bhutan as a modern secular nation-state. The role of Buddhism in Bhutan has direct implication for Lhotshampas and other non-Buddhist minorities in the multi-religious Bhutan.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Generation X was essential to the cultural counter-revolution, the ones who accepted a right-wing GI agenda (Reagan, Bush I) and the Boom Right agenda that GIs had fostered through such groups as Young Americans For Freedom (the current President). Between 1981 and now we have had nearly 22 years of political reaction (if you count the Reagan, both Bush Presidencies and the GOP dominance in the House and Senate between 1994 and 2000). The GI Right found the raw red meat with a materialist, hedonist view of the world.

It seems to me that the old "Doctrinal" order has congealed around an "amoral" worldview based on "Neo-Liberal" Monetarist economics that attacks it's critics by claiming that they have "irrational" and "ideologically motivated" views. At the same time the Moral Paradigm is split between Evangelical types on one hand and "Fair Trade/Eco-Progressive" types, though the two sides of the Moral Paradigm have been getting closer and closer on economic issues, attacking the Doctrinal Paradigm as evil and immoral, selfish criminals going against God/Mother Earth, etc.

If my analysis is correct at least part of the reason the Doctrinal Paradigm has able to hold on for so long was the internal split within the rising Moral Paradigm, more specifically, the Doctrinal paradigm was able to use the Evangelicals' social conservatism as a way to hold off the advance of the Moral Paradigm

It has been noted that we have an Xer-Silent ticket versus a Silent-Xer ticket. Clearly this reflects the mood of a country that is disgusted with Boomer presidents, and is further evidence that Boomer leadership came too early. We are actually in something of a lukewarm state, in that the Democrats would be on a path to a Moral (Hot) Crisis, while the Republicans would be on a path toward a Doctrinal (Cold) Crisis. In other words, we can't even decide on what type of Crisis to have; so we try to put it off.

Originally Posted by JDW

It has been noted that we have an Xer-Silent ticket versus a Silent-Xer ticket. Clearly this reflects the mood of a country that is disgusted with Boomer presidents, and is further evidence that Boomer leadership came too early. We are actually in something of a lukewarm state, in that the Democrats would be on a path to a Moral (Hot) Crisis, while the Republicans would be on a path toward a Doctrinal (Cold) Crisis. In other words, we can't even decide on what type of Crisis to have; so we try to put it off.

But eventually a Crisis will come, if only because it is forced on us by events. Depression? War?

Could someone re-explain these terms (doctrinal, moral, cold vs. hot 4T) to the uninitiated? I've been around these parts for a while, but from reading the original post in this thread am still in the dark about what these shorthands are specifically referring to.

Originally Posted by 1990

Could someone re-explain these terms (doctrinal, moral, cold vs. hot 4T) to the uninitiated? I've been around these parts for a while, but from reading the original post in this thread am still in the dark about what these shorthands are specifically referring to.

"Doctrinal" means that the Awakening was intellectual in nature, examples of which are the Reformation, the Great Awakening and the Missionary Awakening.

"Cold" (a term we just came up with) also means that the mood of the Saeculum is intellectual, and will lead to a Crisis in which doctrinal principles are sharpened - the Spanish Armada Crisis, the American Revolution and WWII.

"Moral" means that the Awakening was emotional in nature, examples of which are the Puritan Awakening, the Transcendental Awakening and the Boom Awakening.

"Hot" (another term we just came up with) also means that the mood of the Saeculum is emotional, and will lead to a Crisis in which moral issues come to a head (typically, a civil war) - the War of the Roses, the Glorious Revolution and the American Civil War.

Originally Posted by JDW

"Doctrinal" means that the Awakening was intellectual in nature, examples of which are the Reformation, the Great Awakening and the Missionary Awakening.

"Cold" (a term we just came up with) also means that the mood of the Saeculum is intellectual, and will lead to a Crisis in which doctrinal principles are sharpened - the Spanish Armada Crisis, the American Revolution and WWII.

"Moral" means that the Awakening was emotional in nature, examples of which are the Puritan Awakening, the Transcendental Awakening and the Boom Awakening.

"Hot" (another term we just came up with) also means that the mood of the Saeculum is emotional, and will lead to a Crisis in which moral issues come to a head (typically, a civil war) - the War of the Roses, the Glorious Revolution and the American Civil War.

So that would suggest this 4T will be a divided, emotional one. That should come as no surprise to those of us closely watching this election. While I don't foresee a new civil war (and the Glorious Revolution wasn't a civil war per se), I do see sharp regional divisions emerging in our near-future politics and culture. Hence, while I expect a decisive (but relatively close) victory for Obama, it will resemble Lincoln's map in 1860 rather than FDR's near-unanimous sweep in 1932. Judging by the rhetoric of leaders today, there won't be much "rational consensus" in this 4T, rather a battle of ideas.

Originally Posted by 1990

So that would suggest this 4T will be a divided, emotional one.

If you read above, you will see my case for this particular 4T being an emotional/doctrinal hybrid, because the Boomers allowed the GIs (Reagan, in particular) to redefine their own awakening.

That should come as no surprise to those of us closely watching this election. While I don't foresee a new civil war (and the Glorious Revolution wasn't a civil war per se),

Actually, that civil war came earlier in the saeculum, but there was one.

I do see sharp regional divisions emerging in our near-future politics and culture. Hence, while I expect a decisive (but relatively close) victory for Obama, it will resemble Lincoln's map in 1860 rather than FDR's near-unanimous sweep in 1932. Judging by the rhetoric of leaders today, there won't be much "rational consensus" in this 4T, rather a battle of ideas.

From what I can tell, the blue-staters seem to be very much in the moral paradigm and are itching for a fight with red-staters. However, I see the red-state reaction as being less passionate - wanting to solve certain problems while discounting other problems. (In other words, the two sides can't even agree what to fight over.)

Originally Posted by JDW

If you read above, you will see my case for this particular 4T being an emotional/doctrinal hybrid, because the Boomers allowed the GIs (Reagan, in particular) to redefine their own awakening.



Actually, that civil war came earlier in the saeculum, but there was one.




From what I can tell, the blue-staters seem to be very much in the moral paradigm and are itching for a fight with red-staters. However, I see the red-state reaction as being less passionate - wanting to solve certain problems while discounting other problems. (In other words, the two sides can't even agree what to fight over.)

Interesting...I see emotions running very high on both sides. Even McCain, Silent though he is, is using rhetoric like "defeating evil" and "following [bin Laden] to the gates of Hell", while Obama's rhetoric, needless to say, is filled with strong emotional symbolism. "Inspiring", something left and right agree his speeches are, is a term of the heart, not the head. I definitely don't see conservatives, as a collective, acting any more "doctrinally" than liberals. Indeed, the dramatic imagery used by both campaigns on the stump this year is remarkable to me, for it seems to bespeak a perceived emotionalism among the American public unseen since the Gilded Age 1T.

And after the almost 100% emotionally-driven Culture Wars 3T (at least, as I remember it -- fairly full of partisan and sectional fervor, and all but devoid of the kind of intellectual wankery common in the Progressive Era/post-WWI zeitgeist), I can't see the 4T being anything less than a Moral one.

That is, if this isn't a morally-driven political climate -- if in fact it is a doctrinal/moral hybrid -- I'd hate to see America at its *most* emotional.

Originally Posted by 1990

That is, if this isn't a morally-driven political climate -- if in fact it is a doctrinal/moral hybrid -- I'd hate to see America at its *most* emotional.

Full-scale psychotic meltdown?

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Full-scale psychotic meltdown?

Like patients in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, I imagine. This had *better* be the height of U.S. irrationality, or close to it. Otherwise, we're in deep doo-doo.

Originally Posted by 1990

Like patients in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, I imagine. This had *better* be the height of U.S. irrationality, or close to it. Otherwise, we're in deep doo-doo.

Don't place any bets on it. Wait until we pass Peak Oil, gas is $20 per gallon, and the entire socioeconomic fabric of the Nation breaks down a la The Long Emergency and Parable Of The Sower.

You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Isn't "We're in deep doo-doo" the very definition of a Fourth Turning?

Originally Posted by JDW

"Doctrinal" means that the Awakening was intellectual in nature, examples of which are the Reformation, the Great Awakening and the Missionary Awakening.

"Cold" (a term we just came up with) also means that the mood of the Saeculum is intellectual, and will lead to a Crisis in which doctrinal principles are sharpened - the Spanish Armada Crisis, the American Revolution and WWII.

"Moral" means that the Awakening was emotional in nature, examples of which are the Puritan Awakening, the Transcendental Awakening and the Boom Awakening.

"Hot" (another term we just came up with) also means that the mood of the Saeculum is emotional, and will lead to a Crisis in which moral issues come to a head (typically, a civil war) - the War of the Roses, the Glorious Revolution and the American Civil War.

Anyone notice a pattern here? ('Doctrinal' Awakening leads to 'Cold' Crisis, 'Moral' Awakening leads to 'Hot' Crisis)

e.g., Last night I heard a co-worker who happens to be strong Republican use the word 'traitors', and predict hangings from light poles, while also predicting total victory for his side. Sounds like some Red Staters are also still spoiling for a fight.

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

Anyone notice a pattern here? ('Doctrinal' Awakening leads to 'Cold' Crisis, 'Moral' Awakening leads to 'Hot' Crisis)

e.g., Last night I heard a co-worker who happens to be strong Republican use the word 'traitors', and predict hangings from light poles, while also predicting total victory for his side. Sounds like some Red Staters are also still spoiling for a fight.

Personally, I wish that I could say that I'm surprised but I'm not.
I'm not surprised because I believe that we are in the social moment. Its evidence is in the daily news. In relation to hurricaine Gustav, the Republican party is curtailing its convention. Americas' attention is on New Orleans rather than Minneapolis. We are turning into an outer focused culture. It hasn't happened overnight, but the entering of millions of indivuals into a new phaise of life is gradual.

One thing to keep in mind is that the oldest millies cohorts are adults in their twenties and being the demographic echo boom their cohorts are huge numericly. That can matter in a "hot" crises for as was the case in the glorious revolution and unlike the ACW, there is a critical mass adult civics in this crises.
I suspect that an X'er/millie alliance may form in this crises attempting to moderate and add some rationality to the public sphere. We may have something like the reactive takeover of 1868 before Fort Sumpter. After all, if you include the 1961 to '64 cohorts, the Xers outnumber the boomers. At least a youth coalition has the raw numbers and it is by definition a growing advantege over time.

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

Anyone notice a pattern here? ('Doctrinal' Awakening leads to 'Cold' Crisis, 'Moral' Awakening leads to 'Hot' Crisis)

Another way of looking at it - the catylist for a Cold Crisis tends be circumstances (e.g., the American Revolution had to do with England needing money), while that of a Hot Crisis tends to be ideology. This time around, I am suggesting that it could be a mixture of both - a Lukewarm Crisis. The result could be an economic meltdown with a blame game, rather than a solution.

e.g., Last night I heard a co-worker who happens to be strong Republican use the word 'traitors', and predict hangings from light poles, while also predicting total victory for his side. Sounds like some Red Staters are also still spoiling for a fight.

You really think that's typical???? What exactly did he mean?

Originally Posted by herbal tee

I suspect that an X'er/millie alliance may form in this crises attempting to moderate and add some rationality to the public sphere. We may have something like the reactive takeover of 1868 before Fort Sumpter. After all, if you include the 1961 to '64 cohorts, the Xers outnumber the boomers. At least a youth coalition has the raw numbers and it is by definition a growing advantege over time.

I see there being too much moderation this time around. That can be just as bad as too little, as was the case of the ACW. It's kind of like global warming. Nature needs to take its course.

Originally Posted by JDW

I see there being too much moderation this time around. That can be just as bad as too little, as was the case of the ACW. It's kind of like global warming. Nature needs to take its course.

Could one argue that "too much moderation" was why the Glorious Revolution 4T unfolded as it did? Certainly that was an emotionally-driven more than intellectual Crisis, but it was not the saecular temper tantrum seen in the Civil War. I could see this 4T unfolding similarly -- as a turning of stark emotion and ideology, but without the rapid escalation seen in the 1860s.