Originally Posted by jadams

I agree that turnings are not driven by parties. In fact parties seem to be irrelevant in the face of such gross systemic failure.

However, it is very important to point out the ideas that led to this calamity because their proponents have learned NOTHING. And those ideas my friend, turned the Republican party into a Gestapo for the Rich. They not only led the way, they intimidated,bought and coopted the Democrats AND the Media AND the Courts. They get tired of hearing it, too bad. The message has to be loud and clear to break through the hypnosis. It's like working with people who have been kidnapped by a cult.

You hit the nail on the head! It is the systemic failure that so many of us refuse to see that keeps us on this corrupt merry-go-round. No matter who is voted into office in 2012, if we don't address and demand a change in the system of a corporate owned government, we will just be rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. And the only people with life preservers will be the elite.

Originally Posted by ASB65

And so is everyone else, even if they are not aware of the 4T theory. The creation of Homeland Security is not a crisis. It's not something the average person sits around worrying about. Even the wars had a little effect on most people in this country. Unless you have a relative or close personal friend serving overseas, it's not something most people think about on daily basis.

If you were to ask the average person on the street what their concerns are about the state of America today, I have no doubt at the top of list would be concerns about the economy whether that be unemployment, not being able make ends meet, loss of personal wealth in their homes or 401ks, and worries about job security, along with a list of other personal financial concerns. Secondly, they would probably mention ineffective government. And this would go under the umbrella of the right saying it's too big or the people on the left or the moderates saying it's corrupt. Political gridlock and bankrupt states would also fall under this umbrella. Another big one on their lists of worries would the national debt and how we are ever going to manage to pay it down.

These are the concerns of our crisis. And these are things that must be resolved before we can declare an end to the crisis. The things you mentioned are things that happened during the 3T that brought our country to where it is today.

You are being very clear, and you are showing great faith in the ability of the system to respond to the needs of the people, especially in a 4T. But in my opinion, a 4T is driven by a leadership elite that commands a certain necessary degree of support but doesn't necessarily care about the concerns of the average people at all. The Republicans did almost nothing for the average person in the wake of the Civil War, for instance. You are seeing this process as a self-correcting mechanism that will inevitably do good, and I don't believe that. The concerns that you mention are your concerns and they are also my concerns. But they are not the concerns of the elite that has gotten control of our country over the last 40 years and consolidated its control during this 4T (the Obama Administration is going to be a relatively small blip in the curve, whether it lasts 4 years or 8), and therefore, it's most unlikely that they will be solved during this crisis. (Nor are they the concerns of many of our fellow citizens, who are convinced that overspending by government is the source of all our problems.)

The biggest mistake a left-winger can make is to assume that justice must ultimately prevail. Except the mistake that elites have no power and simply do what the people demand. Congratulations, my fellow Boomers, you've convinced the Left of this nonsense over the last 40 years--and what you see before you is the result.

This is a very interesting discussion.

Ok, thought here then.

Wouldn't the change in government power after 9-11 be similar to the excessive government power after Prohibition? I continue to believe that this 4T started in 2008 and we still have quite a ways ahead of us.Even if a major war doesn't happen, the economic malaise will be here until the early 2020s at least.


Consider this article from the Federal Reserve Bank of SF:
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/ec...el2011-26.html

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

You are being very clear, and you are showing great faith in the ability of the system to respond to the needs of the people, especially in a 4T. But in my opinion, a 4T is driven by a leadership elite that commands a certain necessary degree of support but doesn't necessarily care about the concerns of the average people at all. The Republicans did almost nothing for the average person in the wake of the Civil War, for instance. You are seeing this process as a self-correcting mechanism that will inevitably do good, and I don't believe that.

This is a very interesting discussion.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

You are being very clear, and you are showing great faith in the ability of the system to respond to the needs of the people, especially in a 4T. But in my opinion, a 4T is driven by a leadership elite that commands a certain necessary degree of support but doesn't necessarily care about the concerns of the average people at all. The Republicans did almost nothing for the average person in the wake of the Civil War, for instance. You are seeing this process as a self-correcting mechanism that will inevitably do good, and I don't believe that.

This is a very interesting discussion.

The current system we have is not going to solve these problems. I agree with that statement. Which is why I think this crisis will be resolved when the system is corrected so that it will work again. And it's not just within the political arena that it will take place. The way that corporate America and the educational systems is run will also factor in. It will involve a new and different vision which will be across all these lines. It will be not be solved by the Democrats and Republicans playing their prospective roles and theirs games. There will be a new path and a new direction taken, just like what happens in the resolution of all crises. Out with the old and in with the new.

I believe the word "Patriotic" will take on different meaning. It won't just mean tying yellow ribbons or saying "We support the troops". It will mean restoring an America that works for everyone. Dealing with the corruption in all these different entities I mentioned will be part of the resolution of the crisis. Once that is done, a new mindset and vision will be put in place and we can tackle all these other issues. And neither Obama, Romney or whoever will take the lead in solving these problems. Look to the 2016 election, not the 2012 election. By that time, the real leaders will emerge. This is will also be around the time that new leaders in corporate America and education will also start to be taking their new leadership roles.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Well, according to Strauss and Howe, the Crisis is about Boomers entering elderhood, Xers entering midlife, Millennials coming of age, and the new Adaptives being born, and will continue until that generational transition is finished, which will happen in the late 2020s.

If we can put the Crisis to bed merely because the Republicans lose next year's election, then the theory is wrong and there is no such thing as a Crisis.

LOL I wonder, if the GOP does lose next year, will David be declaring "we be 1T" while the demonstrations continue in the streets and the pressure for, and debate over, serious reform intensifies? I would not be surprised.

It may be that people begin to act in a Crisis mode -- Crisis thought and Crisis behavior -- in things other than waging war and persecuting pariahs. This is a good time to turn unemployed workers into the builders and renovators of our infrastructure, casting off the bad practices in academia, and maybe establishing a single-payer, tax-funded medical system. Bad 3T and 2T practices must die.

I now see the 2010 elections as an attempt to return to the 3T with which many were still comfortable. A Crisis can manifest itself in major reforms and major shifts of political thought. The 1930s were certainly a Crisis time for the US... and the period 1941-1945 became a military Crisis because of the huge miscalculation by the Axis Powers that the United States was a paper tiger. The Crisis of 1940 could have had its Great War without us.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

But in my opinion, a 4T is driven by a leadership elite that commands a certain necessary degree of support but doesn't necessarily care about the concerns of the average people at all. The Republicans did almost nothing for the average person in the wake of the Civil War, for instance. You are seeing this process as a self-correcting mechanism that will inevitably do good, and I don't believe that.

All right. I'm going to try once more to explain my own position on this. David is a lost cause (and has me on ignore anyway), but this may help some others who are more open-minded.

"Doing good" is irrelevant. How we feel about the changes that may happen during the Crisis, whether we like them or not, is irrelevant. Every statement I am going to make below is an objective one, referring to observable and measurable events, without value judgments. It leads to a completely different conclusion than David's, but not for any feeling reason such as he is asserting here (and reversing, in that the outcome he expects is the one he does NOT want -- which is just as irrational as expecting the one you DO want).

First of all, in the statement "a 4T is driven by a leadership elite that commands a certain necessary degree of support but doesn't necessarily care about the concerns of the average people at all," I know that the part David is focusing on is "doesn't necessarily care about the concerns of the average people at all," but where he gets it wrong is the part before that: "driven by a leadership elite." A 4T is a time when events CEASE to be driven by a leadership elite, in which leadership succeeds or fails to the degree that it can effectively respond to popular demands and tangible events so as to repair the failures in the civic order. By "failures" I do not mean qualities that meet disapproval in our own time-displaced eyes, but rather qualities that threaten the collapse of the government itself. The only Crisis in which our own eyes and personal value judgments have any validity is the one we are going through, and even then we can be on the wrong side.

The problems in the civic order that render it unworkable are the excessive influence of corporate money making the government unaccountable to the public, and consequences thereof in terms of widening income gaps and economic difficulties, together with warmongering. As long as the government remains unaccountable, as long as the popular perception exists and grows that the people do not have a voice in their own governance, the support of the people for the U.S. government will continue to erode. The only way to end this problem is through a Supreme Court case that reverses Ciizens United, OR a Constitutional amendment that does the same thing, OR (most extreme case) by revolution. Everything would follow from either of the first two actions.

The elite is not free to do whatever it damned well wants. It must either take appropriate action to remedy the problems in our civic order, or be overthrown. In previous Crises, reform has always been forthcoming, so that is probably the way to bet this time, too.

Remember the Wizard's First Rule: avoid believing things because you want them to be true OR because you fear they may be. Your wants and fears are both irrelevant here. What is important is what is possible and what is not.

Originally Posted by ASB65

And so is everyone else, even if they are not aware of the 4T theory. The creation of Homeland Security is not a crisis. It's not something the average person sits around worrying about. Even the wars had a little effect on most people in this country. Unless you have a relative or close personal friend serving overseas, it's not something most people think about on daily basis.

If you were to ask the average person on the street what their concerns are about the state of America today, I have no doubt at the top of list would be concerns about the economy whether that be unemployment, not being able make ends meet, loss of personal wealth in their homes or 401ks, and worries about job security, along with a list of other personal financial concerns. Secondly, they would probably mention ineffective government. And this would go under the umbrella of the right saying it's too big or the people on the left or the moderates saying it's corrupt. Political gridlock and bankrupt states would also fall under this umbrella. Another big one on their lists of worries would the national debt and how we are ever going to manage to pay it down.

These are the concerns of our crisis. And these are things that must be resolved before we can declare an end to the crisis. The things you mentioned are things that happened during the 3T that brought our country to where it is today.

That's why I call that period the "Unraveling-crisis" or what the tail-end of the Unraveling had to achieve in order to set up the Crisis environment we are in now. That's what a micro-crisis is to me--the pushing through drastic changes that pave the way for a new turning culture--which is why I consider 1978 - 1984 a micro-crisis as Reagan didn't push as much to create the larger turning culture in his second term compared to what he did in his first. Micro-crises are about changes, just as much as larger Crisises are. When you get to a lull where they're not pushing through big changes anymore but trying to preserve the "status quo" of the Turning culture (or embrace it) then you've gotten to the micro-high. Which is what happened with America after it became clear Bush was impotent in his second term.

In order to create a Crisis about the overreach of the marriage between big government & big business--there had to be a period where it was put out there in the open for all to see. Similarly, the Great Power Unraveling needed a period of loose regulations, disorder, & relaxed standards if there was to be a Crisis about greater regulations, building a new order, & larger government.

It's what I theorize and makes the most sense to me at the very least.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

That's why I call that period the "Unraveling-crisis" or what the tail-end of the Unraveling had to achieve in order to set up the Crisis environment we are in now. That's what a micro-crisis is to me--the pushing through drastic changes that pave the way for a new turning culture--which is why I consider 1978 - 1984 a micro-crisis as Reagan didn't push as much to create the larger turning culture in his second term compared to what he did in his first. Micro-crises are about changes, just as much as larger Crisises are. When you get to a lull where they're not pushing through big changes anymore but trying to preserve the "status quo" of the Turning culture (or embrace it) then you've gotten to the micro-high. Which is what happened with America after it became clear Bush was impotent in his second term.

In order to create a Crisis about the overreach of the marriage between big government & big business--there had to be a period where it was put out there in the open for all to see. Similarly, the Great Power Unraveling needed a period of loose regulations, disorder, & relaxed standards if there was to be a Crisis about greater regulations, building a new order, & larger government.

It's what I theorize and makes the most sense to me at the very least.

~Chas'88

There are several respects in which we are in a crisis environment right now:

1. The continuing Republican determination, which could still bear significant fruit, to dismantle government at all levels. This will continue if they win the next election.

2. The very real threat of war with Iran, which a very good friend of mine who follows these things estimated at 50-50 over the next year.

We are not treating the economic situation as a crisis. There are no proposals on the table that really treat it as a crisis. (Obama's maximum proposals, at this point, would be palliatives.) It is a crisis in the lives of many millions of people but our institutions lack the will to do anything about it and I frankly don't see where they are going to get it any time soon.

Crises, in the S & H sense, are about action. The Bush tax cuts are having far more long-term impact on the country than anything Obama has done or even proposed. He probably threw his last chance to turn things around away when he let them expire.

"We" and "the government" are not synonyms.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The Bush tax cuts are having far more long-term impact on the country than anything Obama has done or even proposed. He probably threw his last chance to turn things around away when he let them expire.

The more time passes, the more I blame Obama for not supporting Simpson-Bowles. If we had passed that, I think we would be in a boom right now. I think his decision to sit on his hands was a disaster for the country which may take years to get over. I thought he had the intelligence and vision to see what would help the country and what would not. I fear I was wrong.

We are about to see if the super committee can do what's needed.

James50

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The Bush tax cuts are having far more long-term impact on the country than anything Obama has done or even proposed. He probably threw his last chance to turn things around away when he let them expire.

You mean he did not let them expire, yes?

Originally Posted by playwrite

In VA, it looks like the Dems will keep the majority in that state's senate. A lost there would have given the whole state over to the GOP making it more difficult for Obama to take the state next year. Its still very close with like 125 votes lead by the Dem in one of the state senate races.

Not so fast. Right now, the Democrats lost two Senate seats and if the results hold, the State Senate will be 20 GOP, 20 Dem. Since the tie breaker is a Republican Lt. Governor, the new Senate will be controlled by the GOP. However, I'm expecting a recount.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

You mean he did not let them expire, yes?

Yes, obviously.

The Republicans would never have agreed to Simpson-Bowles, James. And it was a terrible idea anyway.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The Republicans would never have agreed to Simpson-Bowles, James.

We will never know thanks to Obama. It had Republican votes on the commission.

And it was a terrible idea anyway.

It was our last best hope.

James50

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

What????? The Civil War crisis wasn't driven by the Republicans? The New Deal crisis wasn't driven by the Democrats? Please!

I would agree that the Republican Party has not achieved the same ascendancy that those two did, but it has imposed its values. Our political leaders are not arguing about their essential principles, "small government," austerity, lower taxes, war in the Middle East. They are arguing about the degree of implementation of those principles. That's the proof that they won. It doesn't mean we can't improve things on the margin, but it does mean that we have made lasting changes. And I'm as sorry about it as any of you.

Maybe I am not understanding what you see the parties representing. I don't think the Republicans "drove" the civil war crisis. I'm not a historian, but I have always thought what drove the civil war was a clash of two cultures, one industrial age and the other agrarian age. A lot of economic and cultural feelings and power politics got all tangled up in slavery and the "one state for you, one state for me" compromise. Industrial age culture began to demonize agrarian age need for serfs, it did not fit their paradigm... and they had more power. It just blew up and there was an attempt to establish final hegemony of a truly industrial age economy, culture and religion for the nation.

I see the New Deal as also central to core american values, it spoke to who is equal. Just like the civil war did. Are owners and workers equal, or not. It became an issue because of the great economic collapse of 1929. The interests of the workers were represented by the Dems, but it was almost accidental. In the Civil war crisis, the interest of equality (workers- slaves) were represented by the Republicans and the interests of the liberty (tory owners) were represented by by the Democrats. 72 years later the roles were reversed and the Dems represented equality (the factory worker) and the Republicans represented liberty ("free market" owners).

What I was trying to say was that crises are driven by economics, not by parties. It seems almost the luck of the draw which party is where.

This present crisis, to me is driven by the impact of the technological age and the collapse of the industrial age. Right now it appears that the Dems represent tech age values (less hierarchical) and interests (remember Al Gore) and the GOP represents industrial age (hierarchy) and interests (capitalism, the not so free market). I really don't see anyone representing the needs of the workers. 99% is a pretty massive group. I do see it as being BIG OWNERs, corporations et al, vs. Big Working class. So maybe it is in a way. But the technology corporations are just as wacked at the rest. So I am not sure who is on first in this game. And frankly both parties are wounded. It may be that a third party will grow out of one, or maybe this battle for the future will not be won in this crisis.

Originally Posted by jadams

Maybe I am not understanding what you see the parties representing. I don't think the Republicans "drove" the civil war crisis. I'm not a historian, but I have always thought what drove the civil war was a clash of two cultures, one industrial age and the other agrarian age. A lot of economic and cultural feelings and power politics got all tangled up in slavery and the "one state for you, one state for me" compromise. Industrial age culture began to demonize agrarian age need for serfs, it did not fit their paradigm... and they had more power. It just blew up and there was an attempt to establish final hegemony of a truly industrial age economy, culture and religion for the nation.

I see the New Deal as also central to core american values, it spoke to who is equal. Just like the civil war did. Are owners and workers equal, or not. It became an issue because of the great economic collapse of 1929. The interests of the workers were represented by the Dems, but it was almost accidental. In the Civil war crisis, the interest of equality (workers- slaves) were represented by the Republicans and the interests of the liberty (tory owners) were represented by by the Democrats. 72 years later the roles were reversed and the Dems represented equality (the factory worker) and the Republicans represented liberty ("free market" owners).

What I was trying to say was that crises are driven by economics, not by parties. It seems almost the luck of the draw which party is where.

This present crisis, to me is driven by the impact of the technological age and the collapse of the industrial age. Right now it appears that the Dems represent tech age values (less hierarchical) and interests (remember Al Gore) and the GOP represents industrial age (hierarchy) and interests (capitalism, the not so free market). I really don't see anyone representing the needs of the workers. 99% is a pretty massive group. I do see it as being BIG OWNERs, corporations et al, vs. Big Working class. So maybe it is in a way. But the technology corporations are just as wacked at the rest. So I am not sure who is on first in this game. And frankly both parties are wounded. It may be that a third party will grow out of one, or maybe this battle for the future will not be won in this crisis.

The great strength of S & H, in my opinion, was that they realized that historical change is brought about not simply by economics, not by impersonal historical forces, but by men and women--especially Prophets entering elderhood.

The Republicans developed the free soil platform, got a majority of the North behind them, elected Lincoln, mobilized for the war, and eventually won it. Meanwhile they put through high tariffs, the transcontinental railroad, the Homestead Act, and national banks. That created a new America. Some of them had ideas of transforming the South and they made a half hearted attempt to create racial equality there, but they gave that up by 1876. They held power for all but eight years between 1861 and 1913, 52 years (leaving out the bizarre aberration of Andrew Johnson.)

The Democrats, under FDR, came up with the New Deal, and I don't have to run through exactly what that meant again. They also established our new world role. They were in the White House for. . .let's see. . .32 years out of 48 after 1932. They held the Congress for all but six years from 1932 to 1980. (That was different from post-civil war when the House went back and forth repeatedly.)

So in each of the last two crises one party got control and used it to transform America, working with the raw material that was available. To the extent that either party has done that this time, it is clearly, in my opinion, the Republicans. Where we are now reflects their vision.

I have said this again and again. If I, or Amy, or JAdams, or Herbal Tee, or Child of Socrates had been living at our current ages in 1872, we would have been totally, completely disgusted with Washington and with government. Just as disgusted as we are right now! And there were plenty of highly educated people who felt exactly that way then! How many of you have read Democracy by Henry Adams? It's only about 180 pages as I remember and it's a great read, and quite an eye--opener. It was a sensational best-seller both at home and in Britain because of its scandalous portrait of American national life. And a lot of us wouldn't have lived to see things get significantly better.

The Republican debate is going on behind me right now. (I missed most of it, watching Survivor among other things.) We face the same problem that the Democratic Party did 140 years ago (I'm not comparing my position to theirs morally): to stop the Radical Republicans before they destroy our way of life. I hope we can be as successful in realizing our goals as the white southerners were, unfortunately, in realizing theirs.

And so ends Rick Perry's run for the President in 2012.

Cringe-worthy.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

And so ends Rick Perry's run for the President in 2012.

Cringe-worthy.

Awesome. I was just about to write that.

In 2004 we had a scream (yeahhhh!) and in 2011, we have "oops."

Originally Posted by millennialX

Awesome. I was just about to write that.

In 2004 we had a scream (yeahhhh!) and in 2011, we have "oops."

LOL, I just saw that clip. My goodness, who allegedly prepared that guy for this debate?

Originally Posted by ASB65

And so is everyone else, even if they are not aware of the 4T theory. The creation of Homeland Security is not a crisis. It's not something the average person sits around worrying about. Even the wars had a little effect on most people in this country. Unless you have a relative or close personal friend serving overseas, it's not something most people think about on daily basis.

If you were to ask the average person on the street what their concerns are about the state of America today, I have no doubt at the top of list would be concerns about the economy whether that be unemployment, not being able make ends meet, loss of personal wealth in their homes or 401ks, and worries about job security, along with a list of other personal financial concerns. Secondly, they would probably mention ineffective government. And this would go under the umbrella of the right saying it's too big or the people on the left or the moderates saying it's corrupt. Political gridlock and bankrupt states would also fall under this umbrella. Another big one on their lists of worries would the national debt and how we are ever going to manage to pay it down.

These are the concerns of our crisis. And these are things that must be resolved before we can declare an end to the crisis. The things you mentioned are things that happened during the 3T that brought our country to where it is today.

This is true in the immediate sense of a Crisis by those experiencing it at the time. In the Civil War Crisis, slave owners were deeply threatened by abolition because the threat, to them, was economic. And it was. Slaves, as property, were worth an enormous amount of money. Abolition stripped people of what they considered property which equals value, which equals net worth. Also, each slave was worth three-fifths of a vote for his or her owner, so there was political interest as well. The three-fifths compromise gave a disproportionate amount of political power to the South. (To be "fair" there was also a direct tax on slaves.) The slave-owners political power in turn led to a number of decisions like the Missouri Compromise, Dred Scott, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, etc. All of the anger may have been wrapped up in "preserving our way of life" and "honor," but the bottom line for those in power in the South was that the basis of their economy was slavery.

From my rather sporadic but very interested reading about the Russian Revolution, there was the 1905 Revolution which was the equivalent of a phoney war since Tsar Nicholas II did his best to ignore and subvert it. But once WWI hit and the people were going hungry including the rather limited middle class, all hell broke loose. The people wanted bread, even the most previously contented.

Oh, yeah. There was that "no taxation without representation" thing in 1776. In the last Crisis in 1929 I think i may have been workers' rights and the real chance that the great American experiment had failed. But I don't know much about that except from my parents and old US history reading,

It looks like most of the recent (after the 17th century) Crises have started out as economic but stem from larger issues that must be addressed. It's hard for those of us who are living it to get the larger context. Maybe this is where the concept of "Grey Champion" comes in. Because the economic effects seem to spring from larger systemic and entrenched problems. Maybe Grey Champions articulate the larger context. (And I have doubts about the concept of Grey Champion. It's always seemed like looking for a savior to me.) Maybe that is the singular job of the Prophet generation, as blow-hard and divisive as we may seem.

Economics is always at the bottom of every crisis. it is immediate, undeniable and real. But what we can come away with is not just economic, because there can be justice/equality at the end of it. In the US so far we've come out a little better after a Crisis. But history indicates that doesn't always happen. Russia is a good example. Trading Tsar Nicholas II for Lenin/Stalin (and Lenin was not as horrific as Stalin but that isn't saying much) wasn't a huge success.

For those of us living through a crisis, our perceptions can be narrow and immediate. And that isn't a judgement but a reality. Although at this point I see the slimmest difference between Democrats and Republicans, I see the the most hope in the Democratic Party right now. I see some semblance of even the barest but possible response to the regular working middle to upper middle class problems from the Democratic politicians. Right now I think that those who are of the "aspiring class" are the most deluded. Nobody wants to help you start a business. Small businesses are getting eaten alive. And starting a restaurant? The majority fail within a year. Not all rich people want to crush others. "Eat the rich" is for kids. Hatred and denigration of the poor and for the recently poor and unemployed who "failed" is for sociopaths.

It starts with economics. It starts with having our survival threatened, even if we did what we thought was "good" and "right" and "decent." From then we start to know and address the systemic flaws and injustices that make it close to impossible for the dopey, unenlightened, decent, regular, un-"awakened", conventional, uncool people to just fricken live. But it starts with knowing how we are hurting and then we have to look at what has made us hurt.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The great strength of S & H, in my opinion, was that they realized that historical change is brought about not simply by economics, not by impersonal historical forces, but bymen and women--especially Prophets entering elderhood.

OK. When I read Generations, I also saw the generations as prime movers. But over time I came to see the turnings as having a life of their own. They are the environment for what the generations become. Civics don't become civics because they are led by prophets, they become outer-directed civics because they encounter hard times. Prophets become inner-directed narcissists because they are raised in good times and don't have to worry about survival. And as the times change the prophets become less narcissistic because their false selves are stripped away by the hard times and they too are changed, maybe going back to the core values they started out with. Ditto the Xers, who start off cynical and dark and grow into efficient, pragmatic managers who do not need to grab all the praise and goodies (cause there isn't that much to go around during a crisis).

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The Republicans developed the free soil platform, got a majority of the North behind them, elected Lincoln, mobilized for the war, and eventually won it. Meanwhile they put through high tariffs, the transcontinental railroad, the Homestead Act, and national banks. That created a new America. Some of them had ideas of transforming the South and they made a half hearted attempt to create racial equality there, but they gave that up by 1876. They held power for all but eight years between 1861 and 1913, 52 years (leaving out the bizarre aberration of Andrew Johnson.)

The Democrats, under FDR, came up with the New Deal, and I don't have to run through exactly what that meant again. They also established our new world role. They were in the White House for. . .let's see. . .32 years out of 48 after 1932. They held the Congress for all but six years from 1932 to 1980. (That was different from post-civil war when the House went back and forth repeatedly.)

So in each of the last two crises one party got control and used it to transform America, working with the raw material that was available. To the extent that either party has done that this time, it is clearly, in my opinion, the Republicans. Where we are now reflects their vision.

So you are saying that the Republicans, after 911 "won" the culture wars unraveling struggle and that rightist Prophets led the Crisis response to 911 and now we are wrapping up that crisis and are or have moved on to a quasi 1T (?) or maybe the crisis was resolved more like the civil war crisis. In any case, the millies are not civics because there is no viable prophet generation to lead them. I am sorry that I am having trouble hearing what you are saying. Not sure if it is because I am rejecting it or because I can't understand it. To me, what we went through from 911 until Katrina was a continuation of the culture wars, and after Katrina we began to see just how bad things had become in America. The final nail in the coffin was the 2008 economic collapse. For me, that is when the 4T began. For me, 4T's are about resolving and rebuilding after the 3T unraveling, and the 1T that follows is a rising out of the ashes and the building of a more harmonious social contract. As you can see, I still cannot see it your way, but I am trying to understand it.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I have said this again and again. If I, or Amy, or JAdams, or Herbal Tee, or Child of Socrates had been living at our current ages in 1872, we would have been totally, completely disgusted with Washington and with government. Just as disgusted as we are right now! And there were plenty of highly educated people who felt exactly that way then! How many of you have read Democracy by Henry Adams? It's only about 180 pages as I remember and it's a great read, and quite an eye--opener. It was a sensational best-seller both at home and in Britain because of its scandalous portrait of American national life. And a lot of us wouldn't have lived to see things get significantly better.

The Republican debate is going on behind me right now. (I missed most of it, watching Survivor among other things.) We face the same problem that the Democratic Party did 140 years ago (I'm not comparing my position to theirs morally): to stop the Radical Republicans before they destroy our way of life. I hope we can be as successful in realizing our goals as the white southerners were, unfortunately, in realizing theirs.

This is interesting to me. I am going to get the Adams book. Your last paragraph (stop the Republicans before they destroy are way of life) is something I have seen happening throughout the entire 3T. The only difference now is that the mood and vision has changed since Katrina. That is when people began to see that the right wing might be wrong, and after the Crash it has really hit home. Unfortunately it took southerners 100 years to"win the civil war" and they were still on the wrong side of history... maybe. Who knows? Maybe I am. Maybe the 21st century is going to belong to the corporations. The nation states will wither and a multinational aristocracy will rule the serfs, killing off as many as they can in the name of social darwinism and ecology. I don't know. Do you think China will go for that?

Bottom line: you theory is too depressing for me. I prefer to think that there is hope for a better world. But I will grant you, you may be soooo right.

The Republican debate is going on behind me right now. (I missed most of it, watching Survivor among other things.)

Telling. GOP < cheap reality TV.

I watched the entire debate last night and I have to say that it was downright frightening to me. Now maybe I was misinterpreting what they were saying and perhaps someone else would come away with a different impression than me, but here is my analysis on it.

The debate was on the economy and I would say that they all were pretty in agreement with each other on just about every point. No real debate going on, just a bunch of people nodding their heads and saying, "Yep, I agree with what he said." The main take away from their arguments are these points.

Their main plan to create job growth is to lower taxes even more on the corporations. I kept hearing over and over again, "We need to let the market do it's thing." They also want less regulations on corporations and Wall Street. They talked quite a bit less regulations. Here is their jobs plan in a nutshell. Give the corporations even more money and hope that they decide to reinvest it jobs....But I kept thinking, Umm, they already are making big profits and they aren't doing that now, so how is giving them even more money suddenly going to make them change the way they do business. Maybe we just haven't asked them nicely enough...And on the deregulations thing, what the hell? We are just suppose to let Wall Street and corporations do whatever they want to and have no rules at all. Isn't that what got us into this mess in the first place?

On housing...Let it crash and burn. No help to anyone under any circumstances. Hum, I guess we are going to need more homeless shelters. However, since they don't want government to spend any money, then I guess there probably is not going to be the money to build them. Perhaps people are suppose to sleep in tents...Wait a minute. That won't work. People get arrested for sleeping in tents on public property.

On student loan debt....Oh, this was my favorite one...Ron Paul got this question first. Basically here is Ron Paul's solution. Stop giving students loans. If they don't have a loan, then they won't have worry about being in debt. Besides, Ron Paul said, "They are getting these loans so they stay in school longer instead of going out and getting a job." Newt Gringrich got the follow up to this question and was asked how students were going to pay for college without loans. Here was Newt's answer. Get a part-time job working 20 hours a week during the school year and then get a full time job during the summer months. Well, I suppose that might work, if there were jobs!...Oh that's right, I forgot. The corporations are going to start handing them out left and right once they have more, more, more money and no rules.

The audience clapped and cheered all this nonsense. Which was a equally confusing to me. Either they are living in an alternate universe or I am.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

The Republican debate is going on behind me right now. (I missed most of it, watching Survivor among other things.)

Telling. GOP < cheap reality TV.

Survivor is much less predictable.. .