Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Political Archetypes - Page 20







Post#476 at 08-26-2010 05:17 PM by Rose1992 [at Syracuse joined Sep 2008 #posts 1,833]
---
08-26-2010, 05:17 PM #476
Join Date
Sep 2008
Location
Syracuse
Posts
1,833

Quote Originally Posted by ASB65 View Post
I wouldn't say the Xers aren't interested in politics. I think the more appropriate thing to say is that we see very little people who reflect our views in office or are running for office right now. We see it as being dominated by the boomers who are very polarized. Most people I know around my age, whether they lean to the left or lean to right, agree with some issues from both sides. It's more of a case of having chose between the lessor of two evils. And they tend to pick the candidate who most represents how they feel on certain issues that are important to them personally. If they can't find a candidate who reflects how they feel, they tend to not vote at all.
I think Millies are the same way tbh







Post#477 at 08-26-2010 05:49 PM by Adina [at joined Jan 2010 #posts 3,613]
---
08-26-2010, 05:49 PM #477
Join Date
Jan 2010
Posts
3,613

I always pick the best from each. Like the Prohibition Party's anti-abortion, and anti-drugs and alcohol, and the Libertarian's anti-war, and anti-death penalty.







Post#478 at 08-30-2010 12:10 AM by Adina [at joined Jan 2010 #posts 3,613]
---
08-30-2010, 12:10 AM #478
Join Date
Jan 2010
Posts
3,613

Quote Originally Posted by Rose1992 View Post
I think Millies are the same way tbh
Do you think Millies will change later in the future?







Post#479 at 08-31-2010 02:15 PM by Adina [at joined Jan 2010 #posts 3,613]
---
08-31-2010, 02:15 PM #479
Join Date
Jan 2010
Posts
3,613

What do you think the parties will be like when the Renewal generation starts changing the values?







Post#480 at 07-15-2011 10:05 PM by TimWalker [at joined May 2007 #posts 6,368]
---
07-15-2011, 10:05 PM #480
Join Date
May 2007
Posts
6,368

Quote Originally Posted by Kurt Horner View Post
OK, so now, I'll explain why this thread was placed in the "The Book and Theories Of History" category rather than the "Politics and Economics" category.Since political attitudes will shift over time, and generally in reaction to previous generations, the relative weighting of the various political archetypes should change over time. The question is, in what way? (We already know the answer to the question of how long these shifts take -- this is after all the Fourth Turning website.)It is my contention that, in order to maintain cohesion, a society will only conflict along a single axis at a time. Along a different axis, 90 degrees to that of the conflict, there will be a strong bias toward one side. For example, if the main conflicts are lower left versus upper right, then there will be a bias toward either the upper left or lower right with the remaining position being relegated to the political fringe. Sometimes the conflict axis could be orthogonal to the chart and sometimes diagonal.Thus, at any given moment there is an "arc of respectability" among political opinions that stretches from one end of the chart to the other with a bend that curves toward the bias (and that bias defines the political center). This arc also has recently corresponded to what people generally mean when they talk about "left" versus "right."Below is the chart as I think it has been oriented from the end of the last awakening to the present:The arc of respectability stretches from the "radical" types that Mitchell identified to "theoconservatives" on the true right with a "communitarian" center. Libertarian types of various sorts are either eccentric liberals, curmudgeony conservatives or just plain fringe.It is my contention that the arc rotates 45 degrees clockwise every social moment. (This would hard to prove, but I'll throw it out there nonetheless.) If so, here is the chart from the end of the Depression Crisis until the start of the last Awakening:This certainly explains the left-right axis of the political compass. It corresponds to the main conflict axis at the resolution of the last crisis.And here is the chart as it will be at the end of the present Crisis:You'll note that I also consider this Crisis politically similar to the Glorious Revolution Crisis, a not uncommon assertion of various "grand cycle" theories that have cropped up here from time to time.
So, what exactly is the axis of conflict this time around, and how might the conflict play out?







Post#481 at 07-19-2011 12:29 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
07-19-2011, 12:29 PM #481
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Will the Boomers produce a gray champion?

Has Obama measured up to the role yet? Will he ever? If not him, then who?

How far can we move and distort the cycle, shorten or lengthen it, to conform to perceived events?

And to what extent does the generation/turning cycle conform to the planetary ones?

These are questions in my mind today.

Some people think the emerging 4th turning of today started in 2001, but I and many others see it as having begun in Sept.2008 with the Lehman Bros and ensuing financial meltdowns. 9-11 produced an attitude of "we'll show 'em, we'll keep on shopping" rather than a national dedication to a cause. There was a "security crisis" as Bob Butler calls it, but it was no more or no different from those during the previous turnings of this cycle. There was only a new enemy. It was business as usual: constant ongoing war, with virtually no national commitment, conducted on the sidelines of society to justify the existence of the military industrial complex. The War in Afghanistan was started in 2001 in response to 9-11, but was virtually abandoned. Then a war was started in 2003 in Iraq that had no relationship to the "security crisis" at all, and at the most inspired sustained protest and revulsion against the worst president in our history. The economy rumbled along as it had been doing since the 1980s, and even more sluggish. There was no national mood for change and no action on anything.

Now it is clear to people that the USA is in crisis. The economy was on the verge of meltdown and collapse and was pulled from the brink. Strong financial actions were taken by the government in 2008 and 2009. But so far we have not taken very much bold action for change, although there has been more of this than before 2008. Unlike in 1932, the people in 2011 do not seem ready yet to support such change. Instead they voted in a congress that is dedicated to keeping us in 3T. They are motivated by a greater revulsion than before to the government spending and presumed eventual taxes that were necessary to deal with the emerging crisis, and a national debt perceived to be a crisis in itself. All these events of the last 3 years may be leading us toward a national default and second economic collapse.

So what does all this mean for the turnings cycle?
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#482 at 07-19-2011 12:35 PM by ziggyX65 [at Texas Hill Country joined Apr 2010 #posts 2,634]
---
07-19-2011, 12:35 PM #482
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Texas Hill Country
Posts
2,634

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Unlike in 1932, the people in 2011 do not seem ready yet to support such change. Instead they voted in a congress that is dedicated to keeping us in 3T. They are motivated by a greater revulsion than before to the government spending and presumed eventual taxes that were necessary to deal with the emerging crisis, and a national debt perceived to be a crisis in itself. All these events of the last 3 years may be leading us toward a national default and second economic collapse.
I tend to think this last saeculum, with its reduced emphasis on sense of community and decline of the extended family household, have made it a lot harder to rally in unity as before. There's just more of an "every man for himself" attitude today, as if we live in vacuums.







Post#483 at 07-19-2011 12:49 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
07-19-2011, 12:49 PM #483
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Will the Boomers produce a gray champion?
Of course not. There is no such animal. The "Gray Champion" as that term is commonly used on this forum -- which is very different from the way that Strauss and Howe used it in The Fourth Turning -- is an invention of participants on this forum, totally at odds both with the theory and with actual history, neither to be expected and relied upon nor even to be desired.

Like all Idealist generations, Boomers will not "produce" a Gray Champion. Like all Idealist generations, Boomers ARE the Gray Champion. It's a poetic metaphor for the entire Idealist generation in elderhood during a Crisis era. It was NOT meant to indicate a single Great Leader who takes the reins and leads us out of the wilderness. That's a re-interpretation made by some participants on this forum, overly-influenced by after-the-fact national hagiography, exaggerating the importance and the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt, and conveniently ignoring the facts that:

1) The American Revolution Crisis produced no such leader, nor did any of the Crises before it; and
2) Lincoln and Roosevelt are considered to have led throughout most of those two Crises (incorrectly so in Lincoln's case IMO) ONLY because the Civil War Crisis was believed by S&H to be unusually short, and because Roosevelt was uniquely elected president four times in succession; thus there CANNOT be any such single leader in the current Crisis (and in my opinion really wasn't one in the Civil War Crisis, either).

The idea of THE Gray Champion is incompatible with the generational cycle theory, the essence of which is that generations drive Turnings and vice-versa. "The" Gray Champion is an individual, a Great Man. A generation, though, is not an individual. A generation is a mass of people, all of the people of a particular range of birth years. If we are dependent on a single Great Leader to guide us through a Crisis era, then quite simply the theory is false, and since the idea of "the" Gray Champion arose from a misunderstanding of the theory, if the theory is false there is no reason to expect one.

As Boomers, Eric, you and I and all other Boomers are the Gray Champion. We all play that role, or should.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#484 at 07-19-2011 12:59 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
07-19-2011, 12:59 PM #484
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Each turning cycle is different, and can't be presumed to follow a precise model, either on the basis of turnings/generations theory or some other theory such as astrology or financial cycles. Each cycle is different because the situation in the country is different. One key difference is simply the election calendar, and the other political rules in place. In 1932, a gray champion was elected who proceeded to serve for the remainder of the 4T, over 12 years. This is not permitted today. In 1860, a gray champion was elected after a decade of almost crisis or mild crisis, and his very election immediately precipitated the breakup of the country. These two leaders are presumed by the authors of T4T to be of a prophet generation. In the Revolution, there were no elections, and most leaders were too young to be prophets. The main leader (a nomad) served, went home, and came back again to serve. Today, a president some expect to play the role of a gray champion, and who is at least is more progressive than the 3T leaders before him, was elected just as the crisis unfolded. Actions were already being taken to deal with it, and he was stuck with those actions already in motion. And within a year the people rejected everything he was doing.

I have always presumed that the true gray champion would be in power or taking some leadership role by the time of the crisis climax, in the mid-2020s. I presumed this because, unlike in 1932, a progressive leader would not be able to come to power early in the crisis and stay in office until the end. We are bound by term limits. The great crisis leaders, Washington, Lincoln and FDR, were in office at the crisis climax. And though cycles can speed up and slow down, the timing of the crisis climax does not. It has repeated itself on an almost exact 84-year cycle: 1692, 1776, 1860, 1944. Sometimes key events have happened virtually to the day indicated by the Uranus return to its place at the Declaration of Independence. Using that planetary cyclic indicator, the crisis climax is due on July 27, 2027, or a few days after a big eclipse that follows on August 3rd, 2027. However the cycle may fluctuate, I can predict that the timing of the climax will not fluctuate.

The crisis climax leader does not have to be a Boomer. But it will not of course be Obama, a Boomer/Xer cusper. He arrived too early in the cycle (at the time of the catalyst, in fact), and appears to be handcuffed for the rest of his term by congress. Looking at the election and planetary calendars, I don't expect whoever to be elected in 2016 to survive in good shape in 2020. It is not certain, but likely, that though Obama will be reelected in 2012, whoever is elected in 2016 will serve only one term, and should he or she be reelected, will not serve through the following term. The 20-year cycle is still powerful, and the party in power tends to shift in election years ending in zero. The shift in 2020 should be a very powerful one.

I don't see too many Boomers who could be champions, or potential champions of any generation. Does anyone else? I once said Hillary Clinton would be the gray champion. If so, she will be elected in 2020 and already be in her 70s. It might be a good thing to look around for potential champions. Maybe Elizabeth Warren is a candidate. A woman gray champion would be a fitting conclusion to a cycle that witnessed the emergence of women in politics and elsewhere as leaders. People on the American Left today tend to settle for good compromisers, like Clinton or Obama, and the pundits praise this type of leader. That has not worked; we need a powerful progressive who can wake people up and lead us past and against the exceptionally-powerful regressive forces of our time and cycle.

But some, like Brian Rush, and the authors of the new book "Won't Get Fooled Again", have made the point that followers are more important than leaders. The gray champions of the past served to guide, endure, and keep events on track that they did not start or create. They were moved to act by the people. If anyone started the Revolution, it was Thomas Paine and Sam Adams, and they did not lead it. Lincoln did not split the nation; he asked it to stay together. The Civil War was begun by abolitionists and southern hotheads, and they pushed the changes that happened. FDR and his brain trust provided many ideas, but the people pushed him to do many of the things he did. And then he pulled back in 1937. Obama now is getting a lot of resistance, and is unable to lead anymore, assuming he ever did. The best he can do is make stupid compromises that won't work. So whoever emerges to lead in the 2020s (if someone does), it will be because a peoples movement and events are propelling him or her forward, and (s)he will provide good guidance and keep us on track to the best outcome.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 07-19-2011 at 01:24 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#485 at 07-19-2011 01:22 PM by TimWalker [at joined May 2007 #posts 6,368]
---
07-19-2011, 01:22 PM #485
Join Date
May 2007
Posts
6,368

The general pattern of turnings appears quite robust, as well as the double rhythm of Awakenings (Dionysus 2Ts alternating with Apollo 2Ts). Other patterns may be more provisional, as events may not turn out as expected.
Last edited by TimWalker; 07-19-2011 at 01:28 PM.







Post#486 at 07-19-2011 01:36 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
07-19-2011, 01:36 PM #486
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

I think it might be useful to re-post what Strauss and Howe actually wrote about the "Gray Champion" in T4T (font will be weird, can't help it):

One afternoon in April 1689, as the American colonies boiled with rumors that King James II was about to strip them of their liberties, the King’s hand-picked governor of New England, Sir Edmund Andros, marched his troops menacingly through Boston. His purpose was to crush any thought of colonial self-rule. To everyone present, the future looked grim.

Just at that moment, seemingly from nowhere, there appeared on the streets “the figure of an ancient man” with “the eye, the face, the attitude of command.” His manner “combining the leader and the saint,” the old man planted himself directly in the path of the approaching British soldiers and demanded that they stop. “The solemn, yet warlike peal of that voice, fit either to rule a host in the battlefield or be raised to God in prayer, were irresistible. At the old man’s word and outstretched arm, the roll of the drum was hushed at once, and the advancing line stood still.” Inspired by this single act of defiance, the people of Boston roused their courage and acted. Within the day, Andros was deposed and jailed, the liberty of Boston saved, and the corner turned on the colonial Glorious Revolution.
“Who was this Gray Champion?” Nathaniel Hawthorne asked near the end of this story in his Twice-Told Tales. No one knew, except that he had once been among the fire-hearted young Puritans who had first settled New England more than a half century earlier. Later that evening, just before the old priest-warrior disappeared, the townspeople saw him embracing the 85-year-old Simon Bradstreet, a kindred spirit and one of the few original Puritans still alive. Would the Gray Champion ever return? “I have heard,” added Hawthorne, “that whenever the descendants of the Puritans are to show the spirit of their sires, the old man appears again.”

Posterity had to wait a while before seeing him again—the length of another long human life, in fact. “When eighty years had passed,” wrote Hawthorne, the Gray Champion reappeared. The occasion was the revolutionary summer of 1775—when America’s elders once again appealed to God, summoned the young to battle, and dared the hated enemy to fire. “When our fathers were toiling at the breastwork on Bunker’s Hill,” Hawthorne continued, “all through that night the old warrior walked his rounds.” This “old warrior”—this graying peer of Sam Adams or Ben Franklin or Samuel Langdon (the Harvard president who preached to the Bunker Hill troops)—belonged to the Awakening Generation, whose youth had provided the spiritual taproot of the republic secured in their old age.

Hawthorne wrote this stirring legend in 1837, as a young man of 33. The Bunker Hill “fathers” belonged to his parents’ generation, by then well into old age. The nation had new arguments (over slavery) and new enemies (Mexico), but no one expected the old people of that era—the worldly likes of John Marshall and John Jacob Astor—to be play the role of Gray Champion.

“Long, long may it be ere he comes again!” Hawthorne prophesied. “His hour is one of darkness, and adversity, and peril. But should domestic tyranny oppress us, or the invaders’ step pollute our soil, still may the Gray Champion come....” Although Hawthorne did not say when this would be, perhaps he should have been able to tell.
Had the young author counted eight or nine decades forward from Bunker Hill, or had he envisioned the old age of the young zealots (like Joseph Smith, Nat Turner, and William Lloyd Garrison) who had recently convulsed America’s soul, he might have foreseen that the next Gray Champion would emerge from his own Transcendental Generation. Seared young by God, Hawthorne’s peers were destined late in life to face an hour of “darkness, and adversity, and peril.” The old priest-warrior would arise yet again in John Brown, damning the unrighteous from his scaffold; in Julia Ward Howe, writing “a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel”; in William Tecumseh Sherman, scorching Georgia with “the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword”; in Robert E. Lee commanding thousands of young men to their deaths at Cemetery Ridge; and especially in Abraham Lincoln, announcing to Congress that “the fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the last generation.”

Were Hawthorne to have prophesied yet another eight decades further ahead, he might have foretold another Gray Champion whose childhood would begin just after the “fiery trial” of Hawthorne’s own old age. This generation would come of age scorching the elder-built world with its inner fire—and then, a half-saeculum later, complete its self-declared “rendezvous with destiny” as “the wise old men of World War II.” By adding FDR’s Missionary Generation to the recurrence, Hawthorne’s Tale would have been not Twice, but Four Times Told.

When ancestral generations passed through these great gates of history, they saw in the Gray Champion a type of elder very different from the bustling “senior citizens” of America’s recent past—and from the old “Uncle Sam” Revolutionary War survivors of the 1830s, when Hawthorne wrote his tale. Who were these old priest warriors? They were elder expressions of the Prophet archetype. And their arrival into old age heralded a new constellation of generations.


Now, please note the following:

1) The old man from Hawthorne's story was not a national leader.

2) No national leader is identified by the authors as among "America's elders" in the 1770s. (Several leaders, plural, are named, but Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin were not holders of the reins of power.)

3) In the sections on the Civil War and Great Depression Crises, quite a number of Idealists are named, not just Lincoln and FDR. Clearly, the authors intended for the term "Gray Champion to apply to William Lloyd Garrison, Juliet Ward Howe, and Robert E. Lee, not just to Lincoln. And (although this section doesn't go on naming names) it could equally apply to Upton Sinclair, John L. Lewis, and similar leaders of the Missionary Generation, not just to Roosevelt.

"The" Gray Champion as that term is often used on this forum is entirely an invention of this forum! It does NOT appear in the writings of Strauss and Howe! Sure, they use those words, but they apply them to something different from what this forum seems to have decided they mean.

This is not part of the gen-cycle theory. There is no reason to expect that each Crisis era will produce a national leader comparable to Roosevelt in holding power through the entire Turning, and every reason to expect that it won't. Contrary to what Eric suggested above, George Washington was NOT such a leader; during the Revolutionary War, he was commander in chief of the Continental Army, not head of the government, and he was only elected president after most of the Crisis issues had been resolved, and presided over the transition from Crisis to High. Almost the entire Crisis was resolved without any single head of the government at all, and the same is true of prior Crisis eras. In fact, Franklin D. Roosevelt is the ONLY national leader we have EVER had during a 4T that fits the supposed "pattern."

We will not have a "Gray Champion" in that sense this time. Nor do we need one, or so let's hope. We do have a "Gray Champion" already in the sense that the authors actually used that term.

I'm passionate about this mistake because the desire for a Great Leader is, in my belief, pathological. It's an abrogation of our own responsibility. Not only can we not expect any such person to emerge, it would not even be a good thing if he/she did. It's up to us, and it isn't going to be done for us. We have to do it ourselves.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#487 at 07-19-2011 01:58 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
07-19-2011, 01:58 PM #487
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
I'm passionate about this mistake because the desire for a Great Leader is, in my belief, pathological. It's an abrogation of our own responsibility. Not only can we not expect any such person to emerge, it would not even be a good thing if he/she did. It's up to us, and it isn't going to be done for us. We have to do it ourselves.
Amen. This idea of THE gray champion as a singular individual is simply not present in Generations or its sequels. It was always clear that gray champions referred to many people.
Last edited by Mikebert; 07-19-2011 at 02:00 PM.







Post#488 at 07-19-2011 02:57 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
07-19-2011, 02:57 PM #488
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

It seems clear from the quote that the gray champion does refer to elder prophets who lead us through the crisis at key moments. It is clear also that they don't necessarily refer to presidents, and clearly not to only one man in office during a crisis. That is the key point that Brian correctly raises, and that maybe some folks on the forum forgot. I'm not sure whether the authors said in the T4T book that the main actions by the prophets and others during a crisis come from the people, and not from leaders; but it seems a wise point anyway. Strong leaders and guides should appear during a 4T, and are needed, but so will strong movements, and a mood of dedication to deal with the need for change to meet a crisis. The authors were clear that a turning is primarily a social mood and a spirit of the times among the people. Howe and Strauss were not proponents of the "strong man theory of history."
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#489 at 07-19-2011 03:10 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
07-19-2011, 03:10 PM #489
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
There is no reason to expect that each Crisis era will produce a national leader comparable to Roosevelt in holding power through the entire Turning, and every reason to expect that it won't. Contrary to what Eric suggested above, George Washington was NOT such a leader; during the Revolutionary War, he was commander in chief of the Continental Army, not head of the government, and he was only elected president after most of the Crisis issues had been resolved, and presided over the transition from Crisis to High. Almost the entire Crisis was resolved without any single head of the government at all, and the same is true of prior Crisis eras. In fact, Franklin D. Roosevelt is the ONLY national leader we have EVER had during a 4T that fits the supposed "pattern."
That's what I said; neither Lincoln nor Washington served throughout most of their 4T. But Washington was the most important leader of the time, the father of the country; though as I said, he served, went home, and served again (and from 1787). With his crucial help and guidance, we endured; but he was not the moving spirit of the Revolution, and just one of the leaders.

But if there were three such leaders, in three such turnings, can we expect a fourth one? Maybe things are different now and this can't happen. Maybe this doesn't matter; it is the leadership of the people themselves that matters. In the case of the French Revolution 4T, leaders came and went in a matter or weeks or months. I would look on the pattern of the 3 recognized greatest American presidential leaders, each coming at key moments in a 4T, to be an eloquent pattern that forecasts a possible fourth one. But this is far from a guarantee that such will happen, nor is it a statement that having such a leader is the only way for a successful crisis outcome to occur.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#490 at 07-19-2011 03:45 PM by The Grey Badger [at Albuquerque, NM joined Sep 2001 #posts 8,876]
---
07-19-2011, 03:45 PM #490
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
8,876

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
That's what I said; neither Lincoln nor Washington served throughout most of their 4T. But Washington was the most important leader of the time, the father of the country; though as I said, he served, went home, and served again (and from 1787). With his crucial help and guidance, we endured; but he was not the moving spirit of the Revolution, and just one of the leaders.

But if there were three such leaders, in three such turnings, can we expect a fourth one? Maybe things are different now and this can't happen. Maybe this doesn't matter; it is the leadership of the people themselves that matters. In the case of the French Revolution 4T, leaders came and went in a matter or weeks or months. I would look on the pattern of the 3 recognized greatest American presidential leaders, each coming at key moments in a 4T, to be an eloquent pattern that forecasts a possible fourth one. But this is far from a guarantee that such will happen, nor is it a statement that having such a leader is the only way for a successful crisis outcome to occur.
Can we expect a fourth one? Historically, yes. Whether we'll like the one we get is a coin toss, no more. Do we see one on the horizon? Not yet. Where do they usually come from? From out of nowhere, generally. Stay tuned.
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."

"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.







Post#491 at 07-19-2011 03:49 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
07-19-2011, 03:49 PM #491
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
That's what I said; neither Lincoln nor Washington served throughout most of their 4T.
That may be what you said, but it's not what I said, or not the main point I was making. I meant to say that neither Lincoln nor Washington nor FDR was "the" Gray Champion even when they were in office. In 1935, for example, FDR was not "the" Gray Champion. No one person was ever "the" Gray champion, and I don't just mean "throughout the Turning," I mean ever, literally, as in not for one single solitary moment. That's a complete distortion of the concept as S&H used it.

But if there were three such leaders, in three such turnings, can we expect a fourth one?
Since there were NOT three such leaders in three such Turnings, the question is moot.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#492 at 07-19-2011 08:16 PM by annla899 [at joined Sep 2008 #posts 2,860]
---
07-19-2011, 08:16 PM #492
Join Date
Sep 2008
Posts
2,860

I've always thought that the idea of a Grey Champion seems like looking for a savior.







Post#493 at 07-20-2011 02:49 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
07-20-2011, 02:49 AM #493
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
That may be what you said, but it's not what I said, or not the main point I was making. I meant to say that neither Lincoln nor Washington nor FDR was "the" Gray Champion even when they were in office. In 1935, for example, FDR was not "the" Gray Champion. No one person was ever "the" Gray champion, and I don't just mean "throughout the Turning," I mean ever, literally, as in not for one single solitary moment. That's a complete distortion of the concept as S&H used it.



Since there were NOT three such leaders in three such Turnings, the question is moot.
My point really has nothing to do with the theory per se. There is a pattern: the three historically-recognized greatest leaders in presidential history arrived at key points during what we call fourth turnings. There WERE three "such" leaders: Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. They are known as great because of how they handled the crisis they faced. So, we can forecast a fourth one. You don't have to call them gray champions, although the authors referred to two of them that way. Your quote does imply to me that the authors of T4T forecast a prophet/idealist gray champion will arrive to deal with the 4T, and likely more than one such champion-- and not limited to a president. But, whether it will happen is unknown, and we know that a 4T can be successful even if it doesn't (which is what I take to be your point; that the people are the champion, or perhaps potentially the idealist generation).
Last edited by Eric the Green; 07-20-2011 at 02:59 AM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#494 at 07-20-2011 09:48 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
07-20-2011, 09:48 AM #494
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
My point really has nothing to do with the theory per se. There is a pattern: the three historically-recognized greatest leaders in presidential history arrived at key points during what we call fourth turnings. There WERE three "such" leaders: Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt.
I think you're getting cause and effect backwards here. The reason that (popular -- not scholarly) history recognizes Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt as our three greatest leaders was not because of any qualities they possessed compared to other capable leaders who governed in different times but because they did govern during Crisis eras. Examination of the leadership that these men actually provided reveals many flaws. One could cite Washington's disastrous strategic decision to defend New York City from the British that nearly cost us the war, Lincoln's poor record of picking generals, and Roosevelt's utter ignorance of economics. We remember these men well because they led us through the worst times in our history, and did not ultimately fail. Other than that, I don't think it means a thing.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#495 at 07-20-2011 04:40 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
07-20-2011, 04:40 PM #495
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
I think you're getting cause and effect backwards here. The reason that (popular -- not scholarly) history recognizes Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt as our three greatest leaders was not because of any qualities they possessed compared to other capable leaders who governed in different times but because they did govern during Crisis eras. Examination of the leadership that these men actually provided reveals many flaws. One could cite Washington's disastrous strategic decision to defend New York City from the British that nearly cost us the war, Lincoln's poor record of picking generals, and Roosevelt's utter ignorance of economics. We remember these men well because they led us through the worst times in our history, and did not ultimately fail. Other than that, I don't think it means a thing.
I think that's a valid point; though a balanced assessment in my opinion (and that of historians) would also give credit to these three leaders, without whose steady leadership the crisis might have not turned out well, and remembering the ideals that they held and that they helped to bring into reality.

Historical patterns are interesting, though never perfect. I was thinking today that Washington not only fits the pattern of the great president who leads us through a 4T crisis, but also the pattern of the old general war hero president who calms the situation afterward and keeps a balance between idealism and order in the first turning. The other examples of this "repeating archetype" are Dwight Eisenhower and Ulysses Grant. These 3 men are all considered nomads by the authors, filling the elder-nomad role of the desire for peace and quiet after the crisis, and an end to turbulent change.

But Washington also filled the role of the "gray champion 4T leader" (along with others, definitely), because most prophets were too old in the Revolution saeculum to fill that role in the actual 4T. That's because the turnings were longer in the early-modern, pre-revolutionary period, and the modern age represents faster progress and thus faster turnings. The Revolution cycle lasted 90 years according to the authors. That saeculum and the civil war saeculum were transitional between these two types of saeculum (the 100-year-plus cycle, like the Roman original after which it is named, and the modern 84-year cycle that is the archetype of the saeculum in modern times, according to the authors in T4T). This transition was furthermore the reason why there appears to be an anomaly in the cycle. But it is also at least arguable that the Revolution Crisis did not really extend all the way through 1794. I tend to think it did though.

Of course this means I disagree with your suggestion that Grant was a 4T president. There's room for all ideas, but I don't see the Civil War crisis as extending to 1877. But extending it to 1868 seems plausible to me. An 1877 date just exchanges one anomaly for another, shortening the "gilded age" 1T to the degree that you have to eliminate the Missionary prophet generation instead of the civil war hero generation. I favor instead starting the civil war crisis in 1850; and in Europe at least it has to be extended back to 1846. There's no doubt that the catalyst for the awakening was the Haymarket Square riots of 1886; the first May Day. After that, a vast, fascinating and powerful awakening took hold that embraced not only the labor movement and the populist social gospel personified later by W.J.Bryan, but New Thought and theosophy, symbolist and modern art, ragtime, life reform and free love, the wave of outdoor sports, the rise of socialism and labor unions to increasing power, a wave of inventions, etc., and this turning very much happened in both America and Europe simultaneously, and in identical years. This period also corresponds of course to powerful outer-planet configurations that indicate these kinds of movements, much like the similar alignments of the 1960s. The period 1877 to 1881 was, by contrast, a worldwide periodic shift in the political winds to the right, the kind of shift that happens in the middle of turnings rather than at the start of turnings. Similar shifts occured in the next first turning in circa 1951-52, to the right, and 1958-60, to the left. These shifts are usually indicated by Jupiter-Saturn alignments.

Another possible parallel of what I would call "repeating political archetypes in history" is the period of reconstruction, difficult adjustment and repression or intolerance that happens after the great wars. The time of "citizen Genet" and later the alien and sedition acts, the age of hate and the KKK and military reconstruction, and the McCarthy era and Marshall Plan, are the chief examples of this archetype. Whether these periods were 4T or 1T seems a bit unclear; the authors put them all as early 1T.

One parallel that would argue for extending the civil war 4T to 1868, is the reconstruction amendments, especially the 14th, adopted in 1868 (the 13th was adopted at the end of 1865). These actions were comparable to the foundational actions that typically come at the end of fourth turnings. A first turning by contrast is considered too stable and resistant to change for such fundamental actions. The parallel examples are the constitution in 1787 and the founding of the United Nations in 1945.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 07-20-2011 at 04:44 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#496 at 07-20-2011 05:47 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
07-20-2011, 05:47 PM #496
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
I think that's a valid point; though a balanced assessment in my opinion (and that of historians) would also give credit to these three leaders, without whose steady leadership the crisis might have not turned out well, and remembering the ideals that they held and that they helped to bring into reality.
All right, none of the three was a disastrous washout. But that doesn't change the fact that, objectively evaluated, none of them stand out as the Great Leaders that the forum's concept of the "Gray Champion" (as opposed to S&H's, which is quite different) would make them out to be.

Look at it objectively. Washington's service during the Crisis was mostly as military commander. He was in charge of the Continental Army (not of the government) from 1775 until 1783 when the peace treaty was signed with Great Britain. After that, he retired to civilian life until being elected president under the new Constitution in 1788. His years as head of the government during the Crisis were therefore few: at most, one presidential term of four years; he was elected to a second term but that was served during the High.

As commander in chief, he made many bad mistakes and cannot compare favorably to other military leaders of our history, such as Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman, or Dwight Eisenhower. I mentioned the defense of New York. That was plain amateurish. New York is of course an island surrounded by the Hudson and East Rivers, which were navigable by the warships of the time -- of which the Americans had none and the British had the world's best and most. The Continental Army was outnumbered, inexperienced, poorly disciplined, and hopelessly outclassed by the enemy. It was in no way ready for a pitched battle against well-trained troops. (Contrary to common mistake, the British regulars and the Hessian mercenaries for the most part weren't veterans. But they were at least well trained, which the American forces weren't.) No experienced general would have chosen to fight there. Washington did, predictably lost big time, and barely managed to get his army out at all. He made many more mistakes before the war was over, none of them quite fatal, and we probably would have lost except the other side made their share, too. Eventually he became a fairly decent, experienced general, just as the Continental Army eventually became a respectable military force. But he never became a truly inspired, brilliant commander.

As president, his record is similarly spotty. He chose his cabinet badly, not that it was composed of corrupt or incompetent men. But as brilliant as one must concede Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton both to be, including both of them in the cabinet was so foolish as to be absurd. It's one thing to seek compromise and avoid extreme positions, but to include two opposing extreme positions in the same cabinet does not fit that description! Washington's administration was fair paralyzed as a consequence until Jefferson solved the problem by resigning. Washington's great achievement as president was to be a much-admired figurehead, effectively a powerless monarch who provided a symbol for national unity, and also to step down after two terms, creating an admirable precedent.

What about Lincoln? His managing of the Civil War in its early years was almost a complete failure. He chose commanding generals very badly and came very close to losing the war as a result. Only a serendipitous and unlikely stroke of luck, Lee's battle plans being lost by a courier and found by a Union soldier, allowed the dubious victory at Antietam (a better general than McClellan would have smashed Lee to pieces with that advantage, but McClellan at least pulled off a draw that could technically be called a win) and permitted Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation which forestalled British entry into the war on the side of the Confederacy and a Union defeat. What of the Proclamation itself? It served its diplomatic purpose, but left slavery intact throughout a number of Union states and in all territory already seized from the Confederacy. Eventually, the advantages of manpower and industry on the Union side won the war as had to happen so long as a quick defeat was forestalled, but Lincoln deserves little credit for that. How he would have handled the government after the war was over we can't know, thanks to John Wilkes Booth, but there's no particular reason to believe he would have run the country brilliantly. His great virtue was an unwillingness to give up. That kept him from being a total failure.

Roosevelt? He had going for him a fine grasp of politics and a cheerful personality that made him, like Washington, a good figurehead. He also had a basic compassion about him that led him to take some action to help the unemployed and destitute in ways that Hoover had not done well. But the times called for someone who had at least a rudimentary understanding of economics. We did not get such a leader. Adolf Hitler, who came to power the same year Roosevelt did, quickly pulled Germany out of the Depression through an aggressive program of public works and rearmament. Roosevelt, unable to see how spending money could jump-start the economy, left the U.S. in the doldrums. Of course we wouldn't have wanted FDR to adopt Hitler's tyranny, bigotry, belligerence, and antisemitism along with his economic program, and the way he clearly failed to understand economics (and judging by the nascent dictatorial streak he displayed) there might have been some danger of that, so perhaps it was for the best. Still, Roosevelt did a crappy job of seeing what the nation needed during the 1930s. As military leader during World War II he did somewhat better (considerably better than Hitler did, continuing the comparison), but overall any assessment of his presidency has to judge it a mixed success.

This is what any historian would say about these men were it not for the glow of mystical illumination that surrounds them all due to the times over which they presided.

What matters more than this, though, is that the search for a Great Leader amounts to an abrogation of our responsibility as a people. One runs into the wall of despair that has clobbered David Kaiser when, for example, Barack Obama fails to live up to the misty-eyed exaggerated dreamy expectations arising from 20-200 hindsight. (Quite frankly, he has done every bit as well as Lincoln did -- let's hope we get lucky and survive him, too.) We can't afford this attitude. It's disastrous to look for a man on a white horse to solve our problems for us. The fact is, any reasonably competent leadership, properly pushed and moved by popular movements, can result in a successful Crisis. And we have the examples of Lincoln and Roosevelt to prove that to us.

Whether Grant's presidency was 4T or 1T is irrelevant to this discussion, since he is surrounded by no such aura of sanctity as deceives our vision of Lincoln, so I won't go there.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#497 at 07-20-2011 06:40 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
07-20-2011, 06:40 PM #497
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

I already said I agree that these 3 leaders are not all the myth proclaims them to be, and I know all about all the history you recite. There's plenty of evidence that they also were good leaders who pressed good ideas and provided good leadership. I don't think I need to provide details for this; they are in the record and historians agree; I don't think your theory of why historians say those things carries much weight against all of them. The truth lies between reducing them to zero and elevating them as marble men superheroes and saviors. I already said I agree that we can't rely on leaders to make a successful 4T. I think it might help if it happens, but I agree that "It's disastrous to look for a man on a white horse to solve our problems for us".

I think this discussion in my mind was prompted by peoples dissappointment with Obama, especially David's. I don't think our point of view about this is much different. A correction of fact I had already made though; Washington returned from public life at least by 1787 to preside over the constitutional convention.

Further thought: I do appreciate the value of leadership, of good leaders, and of following leaders. We need government too, and that requires for good people to be elected. We would benefit if a good president comes along, I'm sure you agree. We thought Obama might be good; now we're not sure. There's a difference between all that, and looking for a leader to come along who will solve our problems for us. We can't just wait and look for someone else to do it; we need to do it. A good leader will be also the product of a good people. Our savior is ourselves, and within ourselves.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 07-21-2011 at 03:32 AM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#498 at 07-21-2011 11:42 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
07-21-2011, 11:42 AM #498
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
I already said I agree that these 3 leaders are not all the myth proclaims them to be, and I know all about all the history you recite.
Fine. Then why do you shy away from drawing the logical conclusions? You agree that the popular view of them is a myth. Why, then, do you ask whether we will find such a leader in the future, when you already have acknowledged that we never really did in the past? Obviously it is unlikely that we will. Obviously, given the past, we don't need to. Doesn't that say everything that really needs to be said?

EDIT: There's a difference between saying "we need good, effective government" and saying "we need a hero out of myth." The first prompts us to vote for effective, capable politicians and demand competence from our government. The second prompts us to go into despair and give up because no such hero is visible.
Last edited by Brian Rush; 07-21-2011 at 12:07 PM.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#499 at 07-21-2011 11:59 PM by princeofcats67 [at joined Jan 2010 #posts 1,995]
---
07-21-2011, 11:59 PM #499
Join Date
Jan 2010
Posts
1,995

George Washington(1732), according to Generational Theory, is considered a Nomad and thus excludes him from being an example of "a" Gray Champion. Benjamin Franklin(1706), being a Prophet, would qualify; His actions during the Philadelphia Convention being an example of how "a" GC-dynamic plays-out.

Prince

PS:IMHO.
Last edited by princeofcats67; 07-22-2011 at 12:17 AM. Reason: Word usage
I Am A Child of God/Nature/The Universe
I Think Globally and Act Individually(and possibly, voluntarily join-together with Others)
I Pray for World Peace & I Choose Less-Just Say: "NO!, Thank You."







Post#500 at 07-22-2011 05:49 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
07-22-2011, 05:49 PM #500
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
Fine. Then why do you shy away from drawing the logical conclusions? You agree that the popular view of them is a myth. Why, then, do you ask whether we will find such a leader in the future, when you already have acknowledged that we never really did in the past?
Because I don't go as far as you do, and recognize along with all historians that these leaders contributed to the successful resolution of the crisis of their times.
EDIT: There's a difference between saying "we need good, effective government" and saying "we need a hero out of myth." The first prompts us to vote for effective, capable politicians and demand competence from our government. The second prompts us to go into despair and give up because no such hero is visible.
That's what I said, and what you said. We don't disagree there.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece
-----------------------------------------