Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Many of us old-timers have had a number of years to digest the theory and the better part of a Turning to test it out. While agreeing with you on what the S&H theory actually says, I'm curious as to where you stand. Were they right? Or is it still too soon to know for sure?

Furthermore, how significant *are* individuals? What about this guy, for instance? Did he single-handedly put history on a new course?

That depends on how many nuts there were out there with similar ideas.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Well, these days everybody's got the right...

Individuals have more of an influence in a 3Ting IMO because that's a time we celebrate unbridled individualism. Individuals aren't so important in a 1Ting, where social units & groups are more influential because that's a time we celebrate a unified society. Awakenings & Crises are times of transitions between these troughs and peaks. With individuals having less of an effect over the course of a Crisis, while individuals having more of an effect over the course of an Awakening.

~Chas'88

Link takes you to a YouTube clip that'll make the sentence transform from dull to humorous.

Chas, I would like to take this in a different direction.

Inevitably, S & H in their books were most influenced by the 4T that began just before they (and I) were born. What you describe is what happened in the 1930s-40s: rampant individualism gave way to collective responsibility and sacrifice for the common good. That was thanks to FDR and his surrounding people (other missionaries like Hoover were very happy with rampant individualism, thank you very much), who sold the country, particularly the GIs, on a new set of values. They were the values of that set of Missionaries.

Now the trouble was that, writing in the early 1990s, they misread their own generation. In a way they misread the Missionaries. They had decided that all Prophets were selfish in midlife and then became civic-minded gray champions in elderhood. In fact the Missionaries had particular characteristics of their own, and they were split among themselves.

The problem is that, broadly speaking, there are two kinds of Boomers, divided by party. Republican Boomers are totally dedicated, like many Republican Missionaries, to rampant individualism. Democratic Boomers, for the most part, are dedicated to group-based identity. People according to them are suppsosed by be identified, and rewarded, based upon their race, gender, and sexual preference. They have pushed very hard for this and they have been quite successful.

But what that means is that no critical mass of Boomers even tries to speak for the nation as a whole, much less start a crusade to solve the nation's problems. And that is why we are not having, and are not going to have, any regeneracy remotely comparable in civic spirit (notice I said civic spirit, not listing any particular reforms) to what my parents were lucky enough to live through as young adults. Boomers simply don't care about institutions except insofar as they can enrich themselves or validate their prejudices. Xers care about them even less.

Millennials have some civic spirit, but they control very few institutions and they won't control any for a very long time.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Many of us old-timers have had a number of years to digest the theory and the better part of a Turning to test it out. While agreeing with you on what the S&H theory actually says, I'm curious as to where you stand. Were they right? Or is it still too soon to know for sure?

Furthermore, how significant *are* individuals? What about this guy, for instance? Did he single-handedly put history on a new course?

Princip certainly did not "singlehandedly" put history on a new course. He was part of a conspiracy and there were half a dozen other assassins in Sarajevo that day as well. Any of them might have done it. They were backed by Serbian Army intelligence, which played the same role as the Pakistani ISI today. But Bethmann Hollweg, the Artist German Chancellor, might well have put the world on a new course by allowing Austria's problems to become an excuse for a German attack on France and Russia.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Princip certainly did not "singlehandedly" put history on a new course. He was part of a conspiracy and there were half a dozen other assassins in Sarajevo that day as well. Any of them might have done it. They were backed by Serbian Army intelligence, which played the same role as the Pakistani ISI today. But Bethmann Hollweg, the Artist German Chancellor, might well have put the world on a new course by allowing Austria's problems to become an excuse for a German attack on France and Russia.

All of this is true, but misses the point. World War I was inevitable. It would have happened even if the Archduke wasn't assassinated at all. It didn't have to start with an Austrian invasion of Serbia; it could have started almost anywhere -- in fact, the most likely flareup point was between France and Germany, not involving Austria at all. The only reason why things rolled as they did was because the assassination, then the declaration of war, triggered more declarations of war based on alliances that had been in place for years. In the end, and in the main, the war shaped up as what it had to be: a two-front Franco-German-Russian war, with Austrian participation a mere sideshow.

The details of history are shaped by individuals, but its broad strokes are the result of massive, impersonal forces, economic, technological, and geopolitical.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Chas, I would like to take this in a different direction.

Inevitably, S & H in their books were most influenced by the 4T that began just before they (and I) were born. What you describe is what happened in the 1930s-40s: rampant individualism gave way to collective responsibility and sacrifice for the common good. That was thanks to FDR and his surrounding people (other missionaries like Hoover were very happy with rampant individualism, thank you very much), who sold the country, particularly the GIs, on a new set of values. They were the values of that set of Missionaries.

Now the trouble was that, writing in the early 1990s, they misread their own generation. In a way they misread the Missionaries. They had decided that all Prophets were selfish in midlife and then became civic-minded gray champions in elderhood. In fact the Missionaries had particular characteristics of their own, and they were split among themselves.

The problem is that, broadly speaking, there are two kinds of Boomers, divided by party. Republican Boomers are totally dedicated, like many Republican Missionaries, to rampant individualism. Democratic Boomers, for the most part, are dedicated to group-based identity. People according to them are suppsosed by be identified, and rewarded, based upon their race, gender, and sexual preference. They have pushed very hard for this and they have been quite successful.

But what that means is that no critical mass of Boomers even tries to speak for the nation as a whole, much less start a crusade to solve the nation's problems. And that is why we are not having, and are not going to have, any regeneracy remotely comparable in civic spirit (notice I said civic spirit, not listing any particular reforms) to what my parents were lucky enough to live through as young adults. Boomers simply don't care about institutions except insofar as they can enrich themselves or validate their prejudices. Xers care about them even less.

Millennials have some civic spirit, but they control very few institutions and they won't control any for a very long time.

I would add to this that a subset of Millenials, from London to Wall Street to Penn State, have followed the program of their Boomer elders in a crude sense, by protesting and/or rioting aimlessly, with no real sense of context or reality. They've been very well rehearsed in an attitude without necessarily having any informed position to attach it to. A phrase from a Tom Petty song comes to mind: "A Rebel Without A Clue".

That's not all Millenials, but they're the only ones who can be observed to be following some sort of "Boomer leadership". The fact is, Boomers are generally woefully incompetent phonies, regardless of their political leanings. And most Millenials know that.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Millennials have some civic spirit, but they control very few institutions and they won't control any for a very long time.

They may not control, but they do have influence. It seems to me, that it was the younger generation that did a whole lot of campaigning and work for Obama.

Originally Posted by Deb C

They may not control, but they do have influence. It seems to me, that it was the younger generation that did a whole lot of campaigning and work for Obama.

Correct. Not only that, but Millennials are the driving force behind the Occupy movement.

In fact, I'm going to toss an idea out here regarding who and what drives a 4T. The Idealist generation is relatively unimportant. We reach our peak of influence on society at the end of the 3T and it's downhill from there. The idea that the "Gray Champion" (even interpreted collectively as it should be) sets the program for the Crisis and is all-important is just incorrect. Perhaps S&H played up the importance of Idealists in the Crisis because they are/were Boomers, or perhaps that's just another misunderstanding on the part of their readers; either way, I don't think it's true. Not that what Idealists have done throughout their lives isn't important -- it certainly is -- but what we do NOW really isn't.

The two "social moment" turnings represent a transition between the half-saeculum that is driven by cultural matters, moral disputes, social issues -- what might be called the "Time of the Prophet" -- and the half-saeculum driven by institutional issues, politics, economics, which might be called the Time of the Hero. The Time of the Prophet = the Awakening and Unraveling. The Time of the Hero = the Crisis and High. The "dominant" generational archetypes drive this transition on coming of age. We certainly did this in the Awakening, and the Millennials are doing it now. Boomers' role in the 4T is that we set the values regime which determines what people want and hope for, where we collectively wish to take the nation. It's a crucial role, but it's also something we already did, not something we still have to do.

Right now, the driving force, the rising dominant generation, isn't us, it's the Millies. True, they are not in charge of our institutions, but they don't have to be, anymore than the GIs did in the last Crisis. What were the lasting and important changes to come out of the Great Power Crisis? I submit that there were just four of them: the triumph of organized labor, Social Security, regulations on key industries, and America's increased military strength and global superpower status. Of those, the first was almost entirely the work of GIs, the second two could not have been accomplished without GI support and activism, and the last was driven by GI attitudes changed by the experience of World War II. The entire Crisis was GI-driven; Missionaries as a generation played almost no role at all, and those individual Missionaries who occupied key positions (most obviously FDR of course) succeeded to the extent they were able to articulate GI ambitions in harmony with Missionary values.

We should expect the same this time around. That's going to be hard for some Boomers to accept. We're notoriously narcissistic and arrogant. But we're getting old, and this is the time when our influence declines. We've done our job, and I think we did it well. Now it's time for us to let the Millennials to do theirs.

Originally Posted by Deb C

They may not control, but they do have influence. It seems to me, that it was the younger generation that did a whole lot of campaigning and work for Obama.

That enthusiasm is pretty lukewarm now. Millenials show a slightly greater inclination to give Obama the benefit of the doubt than other age groups in polls, but there's not going to be a repeat of 2008 in that regard.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

That enthusiasm is pretty lukewarm now. Millenials show a slightly greater inclination to give Obama the benefit of the doubt than other age groups in polls, but there's not going to be a repeat of 2008 in that regard.

Their support for Obama isn't a very good barometer. Millennials became seriously disillusioned with him when he tacked to the right in office. That hasn't changed significantly. One key fact about this 4T is that the divisions can't be reduced to partisan politics, where in the last Crisis they almost could.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Correct. Not only that, but Millennials are the driving force behind the Occupy movement.

In fact, I'm going to toss an idea out here regarding who and what drives a 4T. The Idealist generation is relatively unimportant. We reach our peak of influence on society at the end of the 3T and it's downhill from there. The idea that the "Gray Champion" (even interpreted collectively as it should be) sets the program for the Crisis and is all-important is just incorrect. Perhaps S&H played up the importance of Idealists in the Crisis because they are/were Boomers, or perhaps that's just another misunderstanding on the part of their readers; either way, I don't think it's true. Not that what Idealists have done throughout their lives isn't important -- it certainly is -- but what we do NOW really isn't.

The two "social moment" turnings represent a transition between the half-saeculum that is driven by cultural matters, moral disputes, social issues -- what might be called the "Time of the Prophet" -- and the half-saeculum driven by institutional issues, politics, economics, which might be called the Time of the Hero. The Time of the Prophet = the Awakening and Unraveling. The Time of the Hero = the Crisis and High. The "dominant" generational archetypes drive this transition on coming of age. We certainly did this in the Awakening, and the Millennials are doing it now. Boomers' role in the 4T is that we set the values regime which determines what people want and hope for, where we collectively wish to take the nation. It's a crucial role, but it's also something we already did, not something we still have to do.

Right now, the driving force, the rising dominant generation, isn't us, it's the Millies. True, they are not in charge of our institutions, but they don't have to be, anymore than the GIs did in the last Crisis. What were the lasting and important changes to come out of the Great Power Crisis? I submit that there were just four of them: the triumph of organized labor, Social Security, regulations on key industries, and America's increased military strength and global superpower status. Of those, the first was almost entirely the work of GIs, the second two could not have been accomplished without GI support and activism, and the last was driven by GI attitudes changed by the experience of World War II. The entire Crisis was GI-driven; Missionaries as a generation played almost no role at all, and those individual Missionaries who occupied key positions (most obviously FDR of course) succeeded to the extent they were able to articulate GI ambitions in harmony with Missionary values.

We should expect the same this time around. That's going to be hard for some Boomers to accept. We're notoriously narcissistic and arrogant. But we're getting old, and this is the time when our influence declines. We've done our job, and I think we did it well. Now it's time for us to let the Millennials to do theirs.

My observation is that Millenials are far more likely to eventually get behind an Xer than a Boomer. Obama appeared somewhat to fit that description, but in office he has behaved like a standard-issue partisan Boomer.

Obama is the mirror image of George W. Bush. Flip sides of the same coin. Health Care for Obama is what Iraq was for Bush. I've been saying this for several years now, and it remains true.

I've been saying even longer that because of the divisions among Boomers, the Crisis would result in a hash of the two sides. The exact shape of it is in flux, but neither side of the Boomer divide is going to fully win out. I'm being proven right. It won't be long before Xers truly take over, and when that happens the whole idea of Boomers leading Millenials into a glorious Utopia will be through.

Any Boomer hoping for a "Gray Champion" Boomer leader at this point should be directing their gaze at Newt Gingrich, who I've said for some time is the only possible candidate for that role. If Obama is re-elected, I think we can say with certainty that there will not be one, or that to the extent there was one, it was George W. Bush.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Their support for Obama isn't a very good barometer. Millennials became seriously disillusioned with him when he tacked to the right in office. That hasn't changed significantly. One key fact about this 4T is that the divisions can't be reduced to partisan politics, where in the last Crisis they almost could.

Obama did not tack to the right in office, nor did he attempt to be bi-partisan. The left is in monumental denial about that fact. He began losing support when the Democrats rammed Obamacare through Congress, and his decline has accelerated as his policies have manifestly failed to "stimulate" the economy. Millenials are disillusioned because they don't have jobs.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

We've done our job, and I think we did it well.

Nice post and articulate as always. However I am amazed at this final pat on the back. I know of no public evidence that the boomers are admired in any way at all right now.

James50

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Obama did not tack to the right in office, nor did he attempt to be bi-partisan. The left is in monumental denial about that fact. He began losing support when the Democrats rammed Obamacare through Congress, and his decline has accelerated as his policies have manifestly failed to "stimulate" the economy. Millenials are disillusioned because they don't have jobs.

Oh, please. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Obama campaigned as a solid progressive. He promised to do all sorts of things on his own authority, including end the wars, close Guantanamo, and stop the government's trampling on the Bill of Rights. He's done almost none of these things. He also promised a much better health-care reform bill than this, with a public option. We don't have one. He spoke on the campaign trail about "spreading the wealth around," and promised to reinstate important regulations to prevent the economic meltdown from happening again. In office, however, he appointed Wall Street cronies to key economic positions, kept Bernanke at the Fed, let Wall Street off with no significant oversight while going ahead with Bush's bailout measure unchanged and unimproved. Really, the only significant promise that he has kept is to end DADT, and of course that's regarding a social issue which big business doesn't care about one way or the other. Of course he tacked to the right. And that is why he lost influence.

I'm not just guessing about that. Unlike you, I actually have my finger on the pulse of Millennial-dominated on-line liberal activism, and there was an OPEN MOVEMENT in 2010 to sit the election out in order to "send a message" to Obama and the Democrats. (One I opposed, but to no avail. I predicted the Dems would get the wrong message. I was right, too. I wanted something like Occupy back then, but it had to wait until the Millennials saw the value of it, not just an old has-been Boomer.) And that is why the Republicans won the 2010 election -- with just barely over 20% of the people's vote.

You don't like the fact that the Millennials lean strongly left, but it's a fact. And it is not best measured by their support for Obama, because he is no liberal.

Originally Posted by James50

Nice post and articulate as always. However I am amazed at this final pat on the back. I know of no public evidence that the boomers are admired in any way at all right now.

James50

As a member of the hardened Boomer left, Brian Rush is merely surveying with pleasure the irreparable damage they've wrought. I don't think he cares about being admired.

Originally Posted by James50

Nice post and articulate as always. However I am amazed at this final pat on the back. I know of no public evidence that the boomers are admired in any way at all right now.

James50

I didn't say we were admired. I said we did our job well. I think that's true. The advances in gender equality alone say we did. Add in the advances in gay rights, the way environmentalism has become common moral coin, the fact that unquestioned nationalism and support for empire is a thing of the past -- we've been highly influential and, on the whole, for the better. (In my opinion regarding the better. But that we've been influential is an objective fact.)

EDIT; and the fact that a religious-right wacko like JPT says we did "irreparable damage" is, of course, icing on the cake.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I'm not just guessing about that. Unlike you, I actually have my finger on the pulse of Millennial-dominated on-line liberal activism, and there was an OPEN MOVEMENT in 2010 to sit the election out in order to "send a message" to Obama and the Democrats. (One I opposed, but to no avail. I predicted the Dems would get the wrong message. I was right, too. I wanted something like Occupy back then, but it had to wait until the Millennials saw the value of it, not just an old has-been Boomer.) And that is why the Republicans won the 2010 election -- with just barely over 20% of the people's vote.

That's your problem in bold. You think Millenial-dominated on-line liberal activism is representative of Millenials as a whole. Simple common sense should tell you that you're only seeing the fringe, but as always, you only see what you want to see.

You don't like the fact that the Millennials lean strongly left, but it's a fact. And it is not best measured by their support for Obama, because he is no liberal.

Millenials do not lean strongly left, at least not if you compare them to Boomers at a similar age. I'm closer in age to them than you are, and I interact with plenty of them in real life, not just on the internet. Most of them, like most people in their 20s, don't give a crap about politics and are very unsettled in their views. They are heavily influenced by a pop culture that leans heavily left, but that's a different thing. People grow up and start thinking for themselves eventually. And it is already happening with Millenials.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

let Wall Street off with no significant oversight

Like you, I wish more had been done to break up the large financial institutions, but calling Dodd/Frank insignificant is not correct. The recent kerfuffle about debit card fees is evidence of that.

James50

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

That's your problem in bold. You think Millenial-dominated on-line liberal activism is representative of Millenials as a whole.

Polls say I'm right, too.

I disagree that Boomers in our youth were further to the left than Millennials are now. Perhaps it's because I grew up in Texas, but I recall that progressive Boomers were in a minority back then. And of course, we were focused on cultural and moral issues more than institutional ones, because we're Idealists not Civics. So it's rather difficult to make a good comparison, the issues are so different. Still, the center of mass for Millennials is observably and demonstrably to the left, where I'm not at all sure that was the case with us.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I didn't say we were admired. I said we did our job well. I think that's true.

I disagree with you here. The divisiveness with which the boomers have approached every issue and the unrelenting attacks on institutions have tarnished any of the positives you mention. I don't think we will be remembered fondly.

James50

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Polls say I'm right, too.

Polls say they lean left, but not strongly. In other words, their support for the left and/or Democrats is wide but shallow. And it's weakened quite a bit over the past three years.

I have also noted the widespread phenomenon among the Boomer left to look at the most left-leaning Millenials, and refer to them simply as "Millenials", attempting to extrapolate their views to the generation as a whole. You're not the only one. But it is wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Polls say they lean left, but not strongly. In other words, their support for the left and/or Democrats is wide but shallow.

The phrase in bold is where you're making your mistake. The Democrats are not the left. Millennials know that. You need to look at issue polls, not partisan polls.

Originally Posted by James50

I disagree with you here. The divisiveness with which the boomers have approached every issue and the unrelenting attacks on institutions have tarnished any of the positives you mention. I don't think we will be remembered fondly.

James50

Neither of us is likely to ever know. But the divisiveness of Boomers is par for an Idealist gen, and the attacks on institutions part of a necessary cleansing, because the truth is the old New Deal/Superpower America institutions aren't functional, and not just because they're not supported. We have new problems now that they weren't designed to deal with (which is the real reason they've broken down).

I'd say if the Transcendentals and Missionaries can be remembered well, we will be, too -- eventually. Right now, it's too soon, because we're still noisily alive.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

My observation is that Millenials are far more likely to eventually get behind an Xer than a Boomer. Obama appeared somewhat to fit that description, but in office he has behaved like a standard-issue partisan Boomer.

Obama is the mirror image of George W. Bush. Flip sides of the same coin. Health Care for Obama is what Iraq was for Bush. I've been saying this for several years now, and it remains true.

I've been saying even longer that because of the divisions among Boomers, the Crisis would result in a hash of the two sides. The exact shape of it is in flux, but neither side of the Boomer divide is going to fully win out. I'm being proven right. It won't be long before Xers truly take over, and when that happens the whole idea of Boomers leading Millenials into a glorious Utopia will be through.

Any Boomer hoping for a "Gray Champion" Boomer leader at this point should be directing their gaze at Newt Gingrich, who I've said for some time is the only possible candidate for that role. If Obama is re-elected, I think we can say with certainty that there will not be one, or that to the extent there was one, it was George W. Bush.

Good points, all. Interesting perspective. I wish it wasn't true about Obama. And I agree, he is more Boomer than Xer.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The phrase in bold is where you're making your mistake. The Democrats are not the left. Millennials know that. You need to look at issue polls, not partisan polls.

Nor are the Republicans the right. Some are, just as some Dems are the left.

The sweet spot of American politics are those of us in the middle - independents, most Dems and many GOP.

That is why we aren't going to have a revolution here. Even at this time of extremes, we are still the most moderate nation in the world politically. What I mean is that the differences between out major political parties are minor compared to any other democratic countries. I am open to any examples that prove this wrong, I can't think of any.

We are also highly nationalistic, even jingoistic at times.

Our most popular leaders have appealed to our nationalistic spirit and attracted that great moderate middle: TR, FDR, Reagan.

Unlike some of the people here, are I am still very optimistic about us as a people. Even if I had never heard of S&H, I would predict will will unite again and the fringes will be quieted again.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Nor are the Republicans the right. Some are, just as some Dems are the left.

The sweet spot of American politics are those of us in the middle - independents, most Dems and many GOP.

That is why we aren't going to have a revolution here. Even at this time of extremes, we are still the most moderate nation in the world politically. What I mean is that the differences between out major political parties are minor compared to any other democratic countries. I am open to any examples that prove this wrong, I can't think of any.

We are also highly nationalistic, even jingoistic at times.

Our most popular leaders have appealed to our nationalistic spirit and attracted that great moderate middle: TR, FDR, Reagan.

Unlike some of the people here, are I am still very optimistic about us as a people. Even if I had never heard of S&H, I would predict will will unite again and the fringes will be quieted again.

TR - you are a breath of fresh air.

James50