These are the official lengths according to S&H:

Gilded: 21
Progressive: 17
Missionary: 22
Lost: 18
GI: 24
Silent: 18
Boom: 18
X: 20
Millennial: 23 (with the new 2005 date for Homies as per Howe)

The average length of a Generation (as according to these stats) is 20.111 years.

It seems the pattern: the dominant generations last longer than the recessive generations.

When we factor to include cusps, the cores of generations come out to be between 12 - 14 years long. With Nomad/Civic being the longest of the cusps (8 years) and Adaptive/Idealist being the shortest of the cusps (about 4.5 years). Idealist/Nomad: 6 years and Civic/Adaptive: 6 years.

So a cusp is generall is 4 - 8 years long, with the average length of a cusp being 6 years.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That has not happened on this thread. Where I have disagreed with them, I of course believe that I'm right and they're wrong.

Unlike your typical conservative, I'm not an authoritarian thinker.

But as I said, on this thread nothing's come up where I disagree with them, so the issue doesn't arise.

You contradicted them on the length of life stages, and you clearly disagree with them with regard to linear/cyclical history. I know you have your rationalizations, but to fail to acknowledge that you have re-written their theories in large part to suit yourself is to be either ignorant or dishonest. Of course, it is the latter.

Of course it's pointless, because you're clueless. But I'll believe you when I see you actually not trying.

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, until they prove me wrong. You've done so. Often I will give people numerous chances. You have not justified my patience.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

These are the official lengths according to S&H:

Gilded: 21
Progressive: 17
Missionary: 22
Lost: 18
GI: 24
Silent: 18
Boom: 18
X: 20
Millennial: 23 (with the new 2005 date for Homies as per Howe)

The average length of a Generation (as according to these stats) is 20.111 years.

It seems the pattern: the dominant generations last longer than the recessive generations.

~Chas'88

I would have it as this:

Gilded: 21 - Civic 1822-1842
Progressive: 18 - Artist 1843-1860
Missionary: 21 -Prophet 1861-1882
Lost: 21 -Nomad 1883-1903
GI: 21 - Civic 1904-1924
Silent: 18 - Artist 1925 -1942
Boom: 18 - Prophet 1943-1960
X: 20 - Nomad 1961-1981
Millennial: 23 -Civic 1982-2004

The length of the 3T, and thus the Millies, is compensation for the relative shortness of the 1T.

In any case, it is quite clear to me that the 4T started with the Crash, NOT 9/11. Ideology has NOTHING to do with it. As Kurt often repeats, a 2001 start is incompatible with the theory, no ifs, ands, or buts. once you start adding too much leeway it becomes unfalsifiable, which is also why I reject the notion of the Civil War Anomaly (I consider the Gilded to be Civics).

IMO the thing that allows the 4T to start is the entry of Prophets into Elderhood, the rapid fall of elder Artists from power and having enough Civic cohorts into adulthood for their collectivism to impact things, the oldest Boomer was only 58 in 2001 and the oldest Civic was 19, therefore 9/11 did not catalyze the Crisis.

Originally Posted by Odin

Lotta projection goin' on in this post!

I have both Generations and T4T and Brian is absolutely right. The saeculum does not exist in a traditional society in which there is no change and social advancement except when sudden small-c crises occur in such societies, creating a temporary saeculum that eventually stops, something S&H explain clearly in T4T. Obviously YOU haven't read the damn book.

The saeculum is like a giant wheel, a hurricane storm, set in motion by social change. It is an engine driving us forward. We usually think change is linear, while cycle means statis. Actually, all change is circular, and so is time. Try measuring time with a linear ruler. Sundials and clocks have been the method. The Sun and Moon give us time by moving cyclically.

If anything, I think our saeculum may be in danger of ending. We have been stuck in virtual stasis for 30 years, and the tea party's rise to power may portend a society that does not and cannot change. It's too early to say though.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If anything, I think our saeculum may be in danger of ending. We have been stuck in virtual stasis for 30 years, and the tea party's rise to power may portend a society that does not and cannot change. It's too early to say though.

Naw, the TP is a classic early 4T phenomenon, they started in reaction to the Establishment's initial reaction to the catalyst, the TARP bailout. By the time the sh*t really started hitting the fan Obama was president, which has delayed a parallel version of the TP on the left, too many on our side have fallen for Obama's charisma, ignoring his pro-Establishment policies. But now it looks like the Progressive "insurgency" is about to start. I saw a poll today saying that 41% of Dems would support a primary challenger to Obama. The thunder from the Left has come.

Originally Posted by Odin

The thunder from the Left has come.

Oh for Pete's sake, Odin, get real. There is no thunder. Its barely a whimper.

James50

Additionally, I consider 9/11 to be a freak "Black Swan" event, it would have been equivalent to a Bolshevik sympathizer blowing up the New Years bash in Times Square in 1922, such an event would have caused much craziness and a much more extreme Red Scare, and likely anti-Russian hysteria, but still no 4T.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If anything, I think our saeculum may be in danger of ending. We have been stuck in virtual stasis for 30 years, and the tea party's rise to power may portend a society that does not and cannot change. It's too early to say though.

One reason why I believe that we can not have been in a real 4T since 2001 is because the generational succession has not completely taken place yet.
IOW, the "virtual stasis" you're describing is nothing more than the fact that the old dominant Reagan-Bush coalition can still out vote the younger liberal coalition in midterm elections. Consider that during our last social moment this dominant coalition came int o being
after 1968 but didn't really replace the new deal coalition until 1980.
If the Obama victory in 2008 is gererationally the successio0n election to Nixon's 1968 victory, and I believe that it is, then the new way will not, or at least may not, gain the upper hand for good until as late as 2020. Along the way they suffered the Watergate election of 1974. It galvanized the movement rightists to insist control of their party of choice. If the Tea Party victory of 2010 has a similar effect on today's left, then our 1980 may come in 2016. Just as Nixon continued the new deal style of governance, so Obama has continued corporate control of government. The people will have to take the Democratic party away from the elite, and that won't be easy.
But the hangover from our last 3t will end. It may just have to die out.

Originally Posted by James50

Oh for Pete's sake, Odin, get real. There is no thunder. Its barely a whimper.

James50

It's only been, what 3 weeks since the election? have some patience, James.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

One reason why I believe that we can not have been in a real 4T since 2001 is because the generational succession has not completely taken place yet.
IOW, the "virtual stasis" you're describing is nothing more than the fact that the old dominant Reagan-Bush coalition can still out vote the younger liberal coalition in midterm elections. Consider that during our last social moment this dominant coalition came int o being
after 1968 but didn't really replace the new deal coalition until 1980.
If the Obama victory in 2008 is gererationally the successio0n election to Nixon's 1968 victory, and I believe that it is, then the new way will not, or at least may not, gain the upper hand for good until as late as 2020. Along the way they suffered the Watergate election of 1974. It galvanized the movement rightists to insist control of their party of choice. If the Tea Party victory of 2010 has a similar effect on today's left, then our 1980 may come in 2016. Just as Nixon continued the new deal style of governance, so Obama has continued corporate control of government. The people will have to take the Democratic party away from the elite, and that won't be easy.
But the hangover from our last 3t will end. It may just have to die out.

This is where the Millies's collectivism will come in. the GIs did massive strikes and sit-ins in order to unionize industry and the elites were forced to go along lest they provoked a revolution. There is a reason FDR said he was saving the capitalists from themselves. Time for us to scare the corporate elites out of their wits, make them choose between reform or the guillotine.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

This reminds me of a brief discussion I had with James50, over "productivity" being a principle cause of today's unemployment. He said productivity is good because it means higher wages. But if, as M&L points out, this productivity means that fewer humans are needed to do jobs, then the fact is that high unemployment is now endemic, and will only grow (and maybe wave elections every 1 or 2 terms are endemic too).

Maybe our ultimate failing is our inability to share the bounty of the ultra-modern methods of production. Bureaucratic elites in business know how to crack the whip on subordinates and elites know how to maximize profits. Such allows wage cuts despite rising productivity because workers become superfluous. The norm in recent years has been the establishment of the service sector, but that competes with the pittances that employers seek to pay. As economic elites in other times know, upward pressure on wages guts the power of elites, and downward pressure enhances the power and privilege of elites.

I think humans are still needed for some things; machines can't do everything, unless we want to live in a machine. However, what are we to do with all these people that the machines and CEOs put out of work? Obviously, the social safety net is even more needed, and the companies getting rich off the machines need to pay for it. Machines are not really rugged individual entrepreneurs, even though the Tea Party thinks so.

Indeed, the sort of productivity that makes the worker of the super-industrial age irrelevant itself needs a market. In the era of modern capitalism (beginning around 1880) the capitalists recognized the need for a fresh market for manufactured goods and found the proletariat. Mow that the ruling elite no longer needs much of a proletariat, what is left?

Beyond that, if machines are supposed to do all this for us and make life easier (otherwise, why were they invented?), then our work structure needs to change so everyone can get a job. Work hours need to be reduced, at the same pay. Part-time work needs to be available, and no overtime allowed. Who is going to decide these things and enforce them, except a horrible "socialist" government?

The plutocratic classes either promote a widespread prosperity or eventually they will be overthrown by some 'horrible socialist revolution'. If we are 150% as productive as we were in the 1930s when the 40-hour workweek became the norm, then maybe we don't need to work 40 hours a week anymore. 30, maybe? Besides, there's only so much stuff that people can handle anyway, because much of it ends up in landfills, anyway.

So it must, unless by some miracle "the market" gets it that, without these policies, there won't be anyone to buy their products. But that will take a while. Selling and making their products overseas will work for a while, until the other countries catch up. Meanwhile, unemployment remains extremely high.

.. especially if those workers in "foreign" countries catch on and start wanting to share in the bounty of industrial production. Barefoot workers in shoe factories that produce shoes to sell for American suckers for $150 are a bad idea.

JPT and his vast crowd thinks the solution is always to let business do whatever it wants. But what it wants, it only what will benefit itself. The people need to decide what they want, and take action, or they won't get it.

His sort seems to believe in the intellectual and moral superiority of the economic elites solely because they command the means of survival and happiness and use that command to extract from us what they can. Such is a gross misconception of reality. I've met some trust-fund kids who didn't know enough to come out of the cold rain. I have seen accounts of aristocratic elites and found those elites lacking. I have known of highly-successful business owners who remained jungle fighters long after such was irrelevant to the smooth operation of their businesses.

Surely you have seen my comparison of our New Class of business executives to the nomenklatura of the old Soviet Union. Don't be fooled; they would sell out the shareholders for the maintenance of the class privilege that they have gotten if there ever were a 'horrible socialist revolution'.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

You contradicted them on the length of life stages, and you clearly disagree with them with regard to linear/cyclical history. I know you have your rationalizations

They are not rationalizations. I understand what they meant, and you don't. It's that simple. There is no cut and dried, simple fixed number of years for a phase of life, and the saeculum is not incompatible with the idea of linear progress. Howe and I don't disagree about these points at all.

There are some points where we have disagreed in the past, but they're really not about the saeculum theory itself, but about tangential matters related to it. I think that Howe is (or was) fixated too much on budget issues as his idea of what this Crisis entails. I also think that he and Strauss had some incorrect notions of what the Civic archetype is like in terms of social issues, with them thinking that the Millennials would reverse the social changes of the Awakening, which I believe we can all see by now ain't gonna happen. (And I knew it wouldn't, seeing how the GIs turned out in comparison to the sexual mores pioneered by the Missionaries and Lost.) I think their books presented a poor understanding of what a Crisis era entails, and that they were overly focused on the national unity during World War II, and so didn't see the intense conflict that prevails through a Fourth Turning.

And I've made all these things clear. So I'm not at all hesitant about saying so when I disagree with S&H about one thing or another. As I said above, I'm not an authoritarian thinker and my critical faculties are always engaged. When I believe they were wrong, I'll say so.

About the things we're discussing at the moment, though, I don't believe they were wrong. I believe you are, about what they said.

Originally Posted by James50

Oh for Pete's sake, Odin, get real. There is no thunder. Its barely a whimper.

James50

It's beginning, James. Right now, it's obvious only to those who are on the left. But by 2012, it will be obvious to everyone.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It's beginning, James. Right now, it's obvious only to those who are on the left. But by 2012, it will be obvious to everyone.

You are a true believer, Brian, which is admirable, and you could even be right (or should I say "correct"). As for me, I will keep this as a possibility, but do not intend to make any wagers on it of either a personal, investment, or business nature.

Our system pulls people inevitably to the center. The center may be moving left on some long time horizon, but I do not see either a DailyKos or RedState world in our future. And once the boomers are gone, it becomes even more unlikely.

James50

Well, what's happened over the past thirty years or so is that as the nation has drifted slowly to the left, politics has been pulled to the right by a combination of corporate influence and a minority of the country (mostly Boomers) with their feet dug in on social issues, and so what we have now is a situation in which the national center and the political center are out of alignment. It's not like the American people have suddenly lurched to the left. The change has been slow, but because of conservative forcing on politics, a great tension has built up and it's about to snap like an earthquake.

In fact, the snapping has already started. That's what drove the 2006 and 2008 elections, but at this point people are realizing that the Democrats (not just the Republicans) are in many cases out of synch, too. And that's what drove the 2010 election: voters who would have voted Democratic stayed home in protest.

What I expect to happen now, and I see it building, is a surge of protests and civil disobedience on the left, mainly around corporate influence on the government. It will be a call for the government to serve Main Street instead of Wall Street. That needs to happen to counter the MSM narrative of how the Democrats overreached overreached over the past two years, and to push them to the left on economic issues.

EDIT: It may be that one difference here is that Odin and I are both more familiar with what's going on in the progressive blogosphere. I see how the mood has changed over the past two years. Right after Obama's election and inauguration the mood was euphoric. There was no call for activism because people were naively prepared to put their faith in Democratic politicians. That's changed. There's a sense of betrayal and also of "what the hell were we thinking?" and a disaffection with the Democrats (or many of them) that mirrors the disaffection with Republicans among the Tea Partiers. But the insurgency on the left is potentially much larger than the Tea Party. I predict a lot of stormy weather over the next two years.

Originally Posted by James50

I do not see either a DailyKos or RedState world in our future. And once the boomers are gone, it becomes even more unlikely.

James50

Daily Kos no. But you guys are so quick to say "once the boomers are gone." That's a long time from now. Plus, from now on, we have a 4-gen saeculum. The new prophets will already be around when we are dying off.

Another point, James. Today's center generally become the right-wing of tommorrow; that is, if society continues to move forward as it has for thousands of years. It could stop in America; if it does, America will stop too.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

EDIT: It may be that one difference here is that Odin and I are both more familiar with what's going on in the progressive blogosphere.

And me too. There is a strong left net-root culture. It has to have some kind of impact.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's a long time from now.

God willing.

Plus, from now on, we have a 4-gen saeculum. The new prophets will already be around when we are dying off.

Now that is something I hope I live to see! I can just see myself in a rocking chair about 2048 talking about how it was in 1968.

James50

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I see how the mood has changed over the past two years. Right after Obama's election and inauguration the mood was euphoric. There was no call for activism because people were naively prepared to put their faith in Democratic politicians. That's changed. There's a sense of betrayal and also of "what the hell were we thinking?" and a disaffection with the Democrats (or many of them) that mirrors the disaffection with Republicans among the Tea Partiers. But the insurgency on the left is potentially much larger than the Tea Party. I predict a lot of stormy weather over the next two years.

I myself am a perfect example. I was, in typical Civic fashion, a devout, almost rabid, Obama supporter. Then, starting with the Healthcare reform bill, I've been going through the stages of grief...

Well, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Yah. Some of us have been saying that for a long time. Good to see the rest of you finally catching up.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Well, what's happened over the past thirty years or so is that as the nation has drifted slowly to the left, politics has been pulled to the right by a combination of corporate influence and a minority of the country (mostly Boomers) with their feet dug in on social issues, and so what we have now is a situation in which the national center and the political center are out of alignment. It's not like the American people have suddenly lurched to the left. The change has been slow, but because of conservative forcing on politics, a great tension has built up and it's about to snap like an earthquake.

When I begin to think that your view of the world is based on some sort of derangement or mental illness, I remember that you live in California. If I recall correctly, relatively close to Hollywood. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that your perception of what the country is like, what Millenials are like, what's happening in the world and so on, is heavily skewed by your environment. I have no doubt that in California, you could truly believe the far left is the majority in the U.S., rather than a tiny minority, and that the culture is the way you believe it is.

What you may fail to realize is that the epicenters of leftism and cultural decline that exist in NoCal and SoCal are anomalies, both in terms of America and in the world as a whole. That anomalous quality is reinforced by the fact that people of a like mind from elsewhere leave where they are and move there. And in recent times, the normal people who used to live in California have fled in a mass exodus to other states. California has long been viewed with a combination of amusement and embarrassment by the rest of the country, even in the other few liberal bastions on the east coast. In recent years that amusement and embarrassment has increasingly shifted into disdain and horror. To the rest of the country, California is a crazy relative locked in the basement that we try to pretend isn't there. And it is clear that people in California are oblivious to that fact.

The fact that the state voted for the status quo in 2010 while the rest of the country voted for change, even going to so far as to bring back "Governor Moonbeam" during an escalating budgetary disaster, is a sign that the state is beyond hope. There are simply no sane, normal people left there who can turn things around.

In fact, the snapping has already started. That's what drove the 2006 and 2008 elections, but at this point people are realizing that the Democrats (not just the Republicans) are in many cases out of synch, too. And that's what drove the 2010 election: voters who would have voted Democratic stayed home in protest.

What I expect to happen now, and I see it building, is a surge of protests and civil disobedience on the left, mainly around corporate influence on the government. It will be a call for the government to serve Main Street instead of Wall Street. That needs to happen to counter the MSM narrative of how the Democrats overreached overreached over the past two years, and to push them to the left on economic issues.

EDIT: It may be that one difference here is that Odin and I are both more familiar with what's going on in the progressive blogosphere. I see how the mood has changed over the past two years. Right after Obama's election and inauguration the mood was euphoric. There was no call for activism because people were naively prepared to put their faith in Democratic politicians. That's changed. There's a sense of betrayal and also of "what the hell were we thinking?" and a disaffection with the Democrats (or many of them) that mirrors the disaffection with Republicans among the Tea Partiers. But the insurgency on the left is potentially much larger than the Tea Party. I predict a lot of stormy weather over the next two years.

Statements like that make me think "this guy is completely out of his mind", or "there's no way he actually believes that". But as I said, I can see how you might actually be able to believe that if you live in California. You should be aware that you live in a bizarre place that is an object of fascination and loathing for the rest of the country and the world, and you should factor that reality into your assessment of the views of people not in your immediate vicinity.

There are a lot of people in California, no doubt. And it is undoubtedly easy, since so much media is produced there, to be completely unaware of what things are like elsewhere. You never get any messages coming in from the rest of the country, except a few from DC and New York. It's all one-way, outgoing communication with no feedback. Just try to keep this in mind:




To put it as simply as possible, it is more clear than ever that California, and the west coast in general, are stoners riding in the back seat of a car about to go off a cliff saying, "Hey dude, you spilled my Mountain Dew! I'm pissed!! Nazi!!!".

I'm sorry, dude. I'm sorry all those corporate fascist racist hatemongers out there are getting in your way, when we should all just be digging out on double rainbows.

JPT:

In the interests of brevity, I'm going to snip everything in your long post that was empty of substance. References to where I live, mischaracterization of liberalism as the "far left," snarky references to mental illness, etc., etc. All of that is non-thinking, non-substantive garbage and requires no reply.

Now, let me see if there's anything at all in your post that DOES merit a reply.

Nothing in the first paragraph.
Nothing in the second paragraph.
Nothing in the third paragraph.
Nothing in the fourth paragraph.
Nothing in the fifth paragraph.
And nothing in the final paragraph.

Well, it looks like, after eliminating all the goo and dribble, all the empty rhetoric and pointless personal accusations, all the spin and fluff, there's nothing left.

You said nothing at all, and you took six paragraphs to do it. I think that qualifies as an art form.

EDIT: I'll make it simple for you. I'm not so ignorant that I don't know California is more liberal than the rest of the country. When I say that America's center of public-opinion gravity has drifted slowly to the left over the past thirty years, I'm not talking about California. I'm talking about America. I do know the difference.

Thirty years ago, we were debating about whether to put gay people in jail. Now we're debating about whether they should be able to get married.

Thirty years ago, income gaps were still fairly narrow. After more than 80 percent of the growth in wealth in this country between then and now went to the top 1% of the rich, it's become a yawning chasm. If you think that doesn't affect people's attitudes you're nuts.

Thirty years ago, almost 20% of the work force was still unionized, and working people could still earn a middle-class income. Now, that's a thing of the past, and people in the working class are doing well if they can scrape by with two people working.

Thirty years ago, Ronald Reagan could win an election running on a very conservative platform. Two years ago, Barack Obama could win an election running on a very progressive one.

The national center has moved left, while our politics has been anchored to the right. The evidence is there. I see it. You blind yourself to it. It has nothing to do with where I live. If that's the best argument you can find against what I'm saying, then you have no argument. Because that's no argument at all.

That was a bad post, even for JPT

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That was a bad post, even for JPT

If by "bad" you mean "true".